Cyclic polygons in classical geometry

Abstract: Formulas about the side lengths, diagonal lengths or radius of the circumcircle of a cyclic polygon in Euclidean geometry, hyperbolic geometry or spherical geometry can be unified.

\section{Introduction}

In Euclidean geometry, hyperbolic geometry or spherical geometry, a cyclic polygon is a polygon whose vertexes are on a same circle. In Euclidean geometry, the side lengths and diagonal lengths of a cyclic polygon satisfy some polynomials. Ptolemy's theorem about a cyclic quadrilateral and Fuhrmann's theorem about a cyclic hexagon are examples. The two theorems also hold in hyperbolic geometry, for example, see \cite{S}. It is also observed in \cite{S} that the formulas for hyperbolic geometry are easily obtained by replacing an edge length $l/2$ in Euclidean geometry by $\sinh l/2$. In the paper we will show this is a general principle to translate a result in Euclidean geometry to a result in hyperbolic geometry. Also we get formulas in spherical geometry by replacing an edge length $l/2$ in Euclidean geometry by $\sin l/2$.

In Euclidean geometry, the radius of the circumcircle of a cyclic polygon can be calculated from the side lengths. For more information about the radius of the circumcircle of a cyclic polygon, see, for example, \cite{MRR,FP,P,V}. As a corollary of our main result, the formulas of radius of the circumcircle of a cyclic polygon in Euclidean geometry, hyperbolic geometry or spherical geometry can be unified.

In this paper, we do not give any new theorems about a cyclic polygon in Euclidean geometry. But we show that once there is a formula about sides lengths, diagonal lengths and radius of circumcircle of a cyclic polygon in Euclidean geometry, there is an essentially same formula in hyperbolic geometry or spherical geometry. In other words, we provide a machinery to generate theorems in hyperbolic geometry or spherical geometry.

For recent development of the study of cyclic polygons in Euclidean geometry, see, for example, \cite{P1,P2}.

In section 2, 3 and 4, the general principle are illustrated by examples about triangles, cyclic quadrilaterals and cyclic hexagons. In section 5, the main result, Theorem \ref{main}, is stated formally. Section 6 establishes a lemma and section 7 proves Theorem \ref{main}.

\section{Triangle}

For a triangle on the Euclidean plane, assume that it has the side lengths $a,b,c$ and the radius of circumcircle $r$. Then
$$r^2=\frac{(abc)^2}{(a+b+c)(b+c-a)(a+c-b)(a+b-c)}.$$

For a triangle on the hyperbolic plane, assume that it has the side lengths $a,b,c$ and the radius of circumcircle $r$. Then
$$\frac14\sinh^2 r=\frac{(\sinh\frac a2 \sinh\frac b2 \sinh\frac c2)^2}
{A_h(A_h-2\sinh\frac a2)(A_h-2\sinh\frac b2)(A_h-2\sinh\frac c2)},$$
where $A_h=\sinh\frac a2+\sinh\frac b2+\sinh\frac c2.$

For a triangle on the unit sphere, assume that it has the side lengths $a,b,c$ and the radius of circumcircle $r$. Then
$$\frac14\sin^2 r=\frac{(\sin\frac a2 \sin\frac b2 \sin\frac c2)^2}
{A_s(A_s-2\sin\frac a2)(A_s-2\sin\frac b2)(A_s-2\sin\frac c2)},$$
where $A_s=\sin\frac a2+\sin\frac b2+\sin\frac c2.$
The three formulas are essentially the same. They can be unified by introduce the following function:

$$
s(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac x2             &\ \ \mbox{in Euclidean geometry} \\
\sinh \frac x2       &\ \ \mbox{in hyperbolic geometry}\\
\sin  \frac x2       &\ \ \mbox{in spherical geometry}
\end{array}
\right.
$$

The unified formula is
$$\frac14 s(2r)^2=\frac{(s(a)s(b)s(c))^2}{A_3(A_3-2s(a))(A_3-2s(b))(A_3-2s(c))},$$
where $A_3=s(a)+s(b)+s(c)$.

\section{Cyclic quadrilateral}

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\labellist\small\hair 2pt
\pinlabel $a$ at 133 136
\pinlabel $b$ at 19 136
\pinlabel $c$ at 54 28
\pinlabel $d$ at 160 28
\pinlabel $e$ at 43 78
\pinlabel $f$ at 86 128

\endlabellist
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{quad}
\caption{Ptolemy's theorem}
\label{fig:quad}
\end{figure}

We can observe the similar phenomenon in the case of a quadrilateral inscribed in a circle which is called a cyclic quadrilateral. That means the formula about the side lengths, diagonal lengths and radius of circumcircle of a cyclic quadrilateral can be unified in Euclidean geometry, hyperbolic geometry and spherical geometry. Assume the side lengths are $a,b,c,d$, the diagonal lengths are $e,f$ as labeled in Figure \ref{fig:quad} and the radius of the circumcicle is $r$. Then the Ptolemy's theorem says
$$s(e)s(f)=s(a)s(c)+s(b)s(d).$$

For more information about generalization of Ptolemy's theorem in hyperbolic and spherical geometry, see \cite{V1,V2}.

The formulas representing diagonal lengths in terms of side lengths are
$$s(e)^2=(s(a)s(c)+s(b)s(d))\frac{s(a)s(d)+s(b)s(c)}{s(a)s(b)+s(c)s(d)},$$
$$s(f)^2=(s(a)s(c)+s(b)s(d))\frac{s(a)s(b)+s(c)s(d)}{s(a)s(d)+s(b)s(c)}.$$
Ptolemy's theorem is a corollary of the two formulas.

The formula involving the radius is
$$\frac14 s(2r)^2=\frac{(s(a)s(b)+s(c)s(d))(s(a)s(c)+s(b)s(d))(s(a)s(d)+s(b)s(c))}
{(A_4-2s(a))(A_4-2s(b))(A_4-2s(c))(A_4-2s(d))}$$
where $A_4=s(a)+s(b)+s(c)+s(d).$

\section{Cyclic hexagon}

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\labellist\small\hair 2pt
\pinlabel $a$  at 162 187
\pinlabel $a'$ at 23 19
\pinlabel $b$  at 73 188
\pinlabel $b'$ at 141 3
\pinlabel $c$  at 9 120
\pinlabel $c'$ at 181 89
\pinlabel $e$  at 86 95
\pinlabel $f$  at 94 130
\pinlabel $g$  at 115 106

\endlabellist
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{hex}
\caption{Fuhrmann's theorem}
\label{fig:hex}
\end{figure}

One more example is Fuhrmann's theorem about a cyclic hexagon in Euclidean geometry. This theorem also holds in hyperbolic and spherical geometry. And the formula can be unified in the three cases. Assume that a convex cyclic hexagon in Euclidean geometry, hyperbolic geometry and spherical geometry have the side lengths $a, a', b, b', c,$ and $c'$, and diagonal lengths $e, f$, and $g$ as labeled in Figure \ref{fig:hex}, then
$$s(e)s(f)s(g)=s(a)s(a')s(e)+s(b)s(b')s(f)+s(c)s(c')s(g)+s(a)s(b)s(c)+s(a')s(b')s(c').$$

The generalization of Fuhrmann's theorem into hyperbolic geometry is treated in Wilson Stothers' web page about hyperbolic geometry \cite{S}.

\section{Cyclic polygon}

We can expect that the similar phenomenon holds for general polygon inscribed in a circle which is called the cyclic polygon. In this paper we show that the same relationships about the side lengths, diagonal lengths and the radius of the circumcicle hold in Euclidean geometry, hyperbolic geometry and spherical geometry. To make the statement formal, we introduce the following notations.

Fix an integer $n\geq 3.$

The set $\mathcal{E}_n$ of polynomials is defined as follows. A polynomial $f$ of $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ variables is in the set $\mathcal{E}_n$ if $f(|P_iP_j|_e,r_e)=0$ for any $n$ points $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ on a circle of radius $r_e$ on the Euclidean plane, where $|P_iP_j|_e$ denotes the Euclidean distance between the two points $P_i$ and $P_j$.

The set $\mathcal{H}_n$ of polynomials is defined as follows. A polynomial $f$ of $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ variables is in the set $\mathcal{H}_n$ if $f(\sinh\frac{|P_iP_j|_h}2,\frac12\sinh r_h)=0$ for any $n$ points $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ on a circle of radius $r_h$ on the hyperbolic plane, where $|P_iP_j|_h$ denotes the hyperbolic distance between the two points $P_i$ and $P_j$.

The set $\mathcal{S}_n$ of polynomials is defined as follows. A polynomial $f$ of $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ variables is in the set $\mathcal{S}_n$ if $f(\sin\frac{|P_iP_j|_s}2,\frac12\sin r_s)=0$ for any $n$ points $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ on a circle of radius $r_s$ on the unit sphere, where $|P_iP_j|_s$ denotes the spherical distance between the two points $P_i$ and $P_j$.

\begin{theorem}\label{main} $\mathcal{E}_n=\mathcal{H}_n=\mathcal{S}_n$.
\end{theorem}

R. J. Gregorac \cite{G} generalized Ptolemy's theorem to a convex cyclic polygon on the Euclidean plane and generalized Fuhrmann's theorem to a convex cyclic $2n$-gon on the Euclidean plane. By Theorem \ref{main}, Gregorac's two results can be easily generalized into hyperbolic and spherical geometry and the formulas can be unified. For example, we consider the later one.

\begin{corollary} Let $n>3.$ Let $\{V_0,V_1,...,V_{2n-1}\}$ be points on a circle in Euclidean geometry, hyperbolic geometry or spherical geometry. Let $l_{ij}$ denote the length of the geodesic segment $V_iV_j$ for $i\neq j$. Then $$\det(a_{ij})=0$$ where
$$a_{ji}=(-1)^{\delta_{ij}}(s(l_{2i-2,2j-1})s(l_{2j-1,2i}))^{-1}$$ and $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta.
\end{corollary}

A cyclic polygon in Euclidean, hyperbolic or spherical geometry is uniquely determined by its side lengths. Therefore any diagonal length or radius of the circumcircle is a function of side lengths. In the case of Euclidean geometry, it is not difficult to see that these functions are algebraic functions. As a corollary of Theorem \ref{main}, these functions are unified in Euclidean, hyperbolic or spherical geometry.

\begin{corollary} For a Euclidean, hyperbolic or spherical cyclic polygon with vertexes $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ and the side lengths $|P_iP_{i+1}|=l_{i,i+1}$ where $n+1=1$, the length $l_{ij}$ of the diagonal $P_iP_j$ $(|j-i|\geq 2)$ is
$$s(l_{ij})=F_{ij}(s(l_{12}),s(l_{23}),...,s(l_{n1}))$$ for some algebraic function $F_{ij}$ which is independent of the three kinds of geometry. The radius $r$ of the circumcircle circle satisfies $$s(2r)=G(s(l_{12}),s(l_{23}),...,s(l_{n1}))$$ for some algebraic function $G$ which is independent of the three kinds of geometry.
\end{corollary}

\section{Homogeneity}

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\labellist\small\hair 2pt
\pinlabel $P_1$  at 132 84
\pinlabel $P_1'$ at 156 74
\pinlabel $P_2$  at 101 172
\pinlabel $P_2'$ at 111 198
\pinlabel $P_3$  at 30 153
\pinlabel $P_3'$ at 9 172
\pinlabel $P_4$  at 33 76
\pinlabel $P_4'$ at 12 56
\pinlabel $P_1$  at 344 86
\pinlabel $P_1'$ at 368 73
\pinlabel $P_2$  at 314 174
\pinlabel $P_2'$ at 324 202
\pinlabel $P_3$  at 243 153
\pinlabel $P_3'$ at 222 174
\pinlabel $P_4$  at 246 76
\pinlabel $P_4'$ at 228 55
\pinlabel $P_1$  at 542 106
\pinlabel $P_1'$ at 525 76
\pinlabel $P_2$  at 566 125
\pinlabel $P_2'$ at 567 88
\pinlabel $P_3$  at 476 128
\pinlabel $P_3'$ at 470 88
\pinlabel $P_4$  at 455 108
\pinlabel $P_4'$ at 464 56
\pinlabel $(a)$ at 81 10
\pinlabel $(b)$ at 297 10
\pinlabel $(c)$ at 507 10
\pinlabel $O$ at 74 122
\pinlabel $O$ at 285 122
\pinlabel $S$ at 503 32
\endlabellist
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.62]{homo}
\caption{}
\label{fig:homo}
\end{figure}

To prove Theorem \ref{main}, we need the following lemma.

\begin{lemma}\label{homo} If $f\in \mathcal{E}_n \cup \mathcal{H}_n \cup \mathcal{S}_n$, then $f$ is homogeneous.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Assume $f\in \mathcal{E}_n$. Then $f(|P_iP_j|_e,r_e)=0$ for any $n$ points $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ on a circle of any radius $r_e$ on the Euclidean plane. We can assume the center of the circle is the origin. For any $x>0,$ by multiplying the coordinates of $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ by $x$, we obtain new points $P'_1,P'_2,...,P'_n$ with is on the circle of radius $xr_e$ centered at the origin, see Figure \ref{fig:homo}(a). The distance $|P'_iP'_j|_e=x|P_iP_j|_e$ and the radius $xr_e$ also satisfy the polynomial $f$, i.e., $f(x|P_iP_j|_e,xr_e)=0$. Therefore $f$ is homogeneous.

Assume $f\in \mathcal{H}_n$. Then $f(\sinh\frac{|P_iP_j|_h}2,\frac12\sinh r_h)=0$ for any points $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ on a circle $C$ of radius $r_h$ on the hyperbolic plane. We use the Poincar\'e disk model of the hyperbolic plane: $\{z\in \mathbb{C}: |z|<1\}$. Assume the center of the circle is the origin $O$. For any $x>0$, there is another circle $C'$ centered at $O$ with radius $r_h'$ satisfying $\sinh r_h'= x\sinh r_h.$ For each $i$, let $P_i'$ be the intersection point of $C'$ and the geodesic ray starting from $O$ and passing though $P_i$ as in Figure \ref{fig:homo}(b). By the law of sine of a hyperbolic triangle, we have
$$\frac{\sinh\frac{|P_iP_j|_h}2}{\sinh r_h}=\sin\frac{\angle P_iOP_j}{2}
=\frac{\sinh\frac{|P_i'P_j'|_h}2}{\sinh r_h'}=\frac{\sinh\frac{|P_i'P_j'|_h}2}{x\sinh r_h}$$
where $\angle P_iOP_j \in (0,\pi].$ Therefor $\sinh\frac{|P_i'P_j'|_h}2=x\sinh\frac{|P_iP_j|_h}2$.

Since $f\in \mathcal{H}_n,$ the equation $f(\sinh\frac{|P_i'P_j'|_h}2,\frac12\sinh r_h')=0$ holds. Thus $$f(x\sinh\frac{|P_iP_j|_h}2,x\frac12\sinh r_h)=0$$ holds for any $x>0$. Therefore $f$ is homogeneous.

Assume $f\in \mathcal{S}_n$. Then $f(\sin\frac{|P_iP_j|_s}2,\frac12\sin r_s)=0$ for any points $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ on a circle $C$ of radius $r_s$ on the unit sphere. Assume the center of the circle is the south pole $S$. For any $x\in (0,1)$, there is another circle $C'$ centered at south pole with radius $r_s'$ satisfying $\sin r_s'= x\sin r_s.$ For each $i$, let $P_i'$ be the intersection point of $C'$ and the geodesic ray starting from $O$ and passing through $P_i$ as in Figure \ref{fig:homo}(c). By the law of sine of a spherical triangle, we have
$$\frac{\sin\frac{|P_iP_j|_s}2}{\sin r_s}=\sin\frac{\angle P_iOP_j}{2}
=\frac{\sin\frac{|P_i'P_j'|_s}2}{\sin r_s'}=\frac{\sin\frac{|P_i'P_j'|_s}2}{x\sin r_s}$$
where $\angle P_iOP_j \in (0,\pi].$ Therefor $\sin\frac{|P_i'P_j'|_s}2=x\sin\frac{|P_iP_j|_s}2$.

Since $f\in \mathcal{S}_n,$ the equation $f(\sin\frac{|P_i'P_j'|_s}2,\frac12\sin r_s')=0$ holds. Thus $$f(x\sin\frac{|P_iP_j|_s}2,x\frac12\sin r_s)=0$$ holds for any $x\in (0,1)$. Therefore $f$ is homogeneous.

\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main}}

\subsection{$\mathcal{E}_n \subseteq \mathcal{H}_n$}

Let $f$ be a polynomial in $\mathcal{E}_n.$

Consider $n$ points $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ on a circle of radius $r_h$ on the hyperbolic plane. We use the Poincar\'e disk model of the hyperbolic plane. Assume that the center of the circle is the origin $O$. In the hyperbolic triangle $\triangle_h P_iOP_j$ which can be degenerated into a line segment, by the law of sine, we have
$$\sin\frac{\angle P_iOP_j}{2}=\frac{\sinh\frac{|P_iP_j|_h}2}{\sinh r_h}$$
where $\angle P_iOP_j \in (0,\pi].$

On the other hand, this circle is also a Euclidean circle. We consider the Euclidean triangle $\triangle_e P_iOP_j$, by the law of sine, we have
$$\sin\frac{\angle P_iOP_j}{2}=\frac{|P_iP_j|_e}{2r_e}.$$

Hence $$\sinh\frac{|P_iP_j|_h}2=\frac{\sinh r_h}{2r_e}\cdot |P_iP_j|_e.$$
Obviously,
$$\frac12 \sinh r_h=\frac{\sinh r_h}{2r_e}\cdot r_e.$$

Since $f\in \mathcal{E}_n,$ $f(|P_iP_j|_e,r_e)=0$. By Lemma \ref{homo},
$$f(\sinh\frac{|P_iP_j|_h}2,\frac12\sinh r_h)=f(x|P_iP_j|_e,xr_e)=0,$$ where $x=\frac{\sinh r_h}{2r_e}$. Hence $f\in \mathcal{H}_n$.

\subsection{$\mathcal{H}_n \supseteq \mathcal{E}_n$}

Let $f$ be a polynomial in $\mathcal{H}_n.$

For any points $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ on a circle of radius $r_e$ centered at the origin on the Euclidean plane. For a number $y\in (0,\frac 1{r_e}),$ consider the circle $C'$ centered at the origin and with radius $yr_e.$
For any $i$, let $P'_i$ be the the intersection point of $C'$ and the ray starting from $O$ and and passing through $P_i$. For any $i,j$, we consider the Euclidean triangle $\triangle_e P_iOP_j$ which can be degenerated. On the other hand,
Since all the points $P'_1,P'_2,...,P'_n$ are in the unit disk which is considered as the hyperbolic plane, for any $i,j$, there is also a hyperbolic triangle $\triangle_h P_iOP_j$.
By the law of sine, we have
$$\frac{\sinh\frac{|P'_iP'_j|_h}2}{\sinh |OP'_i|_h}=\sin\frac{\angle P_iOP_j}{2}=\frac{|P'_iP'_j|_e}{2yr_e}=\frac{|P_iP_j|_e}{2r_e}.$$

By Lemma \ref{homo}, $f(x\sinh\frac{|P'_iP'_j|_h}2,x\frac12\sinh |OP'_i|_h)=0$ for any $x>0$. By taking $x=\frac{2r_e}{\sinh |OP'_i|_h}$,
we have $f(|P_iP_j|_e, r_e)=0.$ Thus $f\in \mathcal{E}_n.$

To sum up, we have proved that $\mathcal{E}_n=\mathcal{H}_n$.

\subsection{$\mathcal{E}_n \subseteq \mathcal{S}_n$}

Let $f$ be a polynomial in $\mathcal{E}_n.$

Consider $n$ points $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ on a circle of radius $r_s$ on the unit sphere $\{(x,y,z):x^2+y^2+z^2=1\}$. Assume that the center of the circle is the south pole $S$. In the spherical triangle $\triangle_s P_iSP_j$ which can be degenerated, by the law of sine, we have
$$\sin\frac{\angle P_iSP_j}{2}=\frac{\sin\frac{|P_iP_j|_s}2}{\sin r_s}.$$

For any $i$, let $P'_i$ be the image of $P_i$ under the stereographic projection from the north pole, i.e., the intersection point of the plane $z=0$ and the line passing through the north pole and $P_i$. Then $P'_1,P'_2,...,P'_n$ are points on a circle of radius $r_e$ centered at the origin $O$ on the Euclidean plane $z=0$. In the Euclidean triangle $\triangle_e P_iOP_j$, by the law of sine, we have
$$\sin\frac{\angle P'_iOP'_j}{2}=\frac{|P_iP_j|_e}{2r_e}.$$

Since $\angle P_iSP_j=\angle P'_iOP'_j,$ we have
$$\sin\frac{|P_iP_j|_s}2=\frac{\sin r_s}{2r_e}\cdot |P'_iP'_j|_e.$$
Obviously,
$$\frac12 \sin r_s=\frac{\sin r_s}{2r_e}\cdot r_e.$$

Since $f\in \mathcal{E}_n,$ $f(|P'_iP'_j|_e,r_e)=0$. By Lemma \ref{homo},
$$f(\sin\frac{|P_iP_j|_s}2,\frac12\sin r_s)=f(x|P'_iP'_j|_e,xr_e)=0,$$ where $x=\frac{\sin r_s}{2r_e}$. Hence $f\in \mathcal{S}_n$.

\subsection{$\mathcal{S}_n \subseteq \mathcal{E}_n$}

Let $g$ be a polynomial in $\mathcal{S}_n.$

For any points $B_1,B_2,...,B_n$ on a circle of radius $r_e$ centered at the origin $O$ on the Euclidean plane.
Consider the stereographic projection from the north pole of the unit sphere $\{(x,y,z):x^2+y^2+z^2=1\}$. The image of
$B_1,B_2,...,B_n$ under the stereographic projection are points $B'_1,B'_2,...,B'_n$ on a circle of radius $r_s$ centered at the south pole $S$ on the unit sphere. By the law of sine, we have
$$\sin\frac{\angle B_iOB_j}{2}=\frac{|B_iB_j|_e}{2r_e},$$
$$\sin\frac{\angle B'_iSB'_j}{2}=\frac{\sin\frac{|B'_iB'_j|_s}2}{\sin r_s}.$$

Since $\angle B_iOB_j=\angle B'_iSB'_j,$ we have
$$|B_iB_j|_e=\frac{2r_e}{\sin r_s}\cdot \sin\frac{|B'_iB'_j|_s}2.$$
Obviously,
$$r_e=\frac{2r_e}{\sin r_s} \cdot \frac12 \sin r_s.$$

Since $g\in \mathcal{S}_n,$ $g(\sin\frac{|B'_iB'_j|_s}2, \frac12 \sin r_s)=0.$ By Lemma \ref{homo}, $$g(x\sin\frac{|B'_iB'_j|_s}2, x\frac12 \sin r_s)=g(|B_iB_j|_e, r_e)=0,$$ where $x=\frac{2r_e}{\sin r_s}.$ Hence $g\in  \mathcal{E}_n.$

To sum up, we have proved that $\mathcal{E}_n=\mathcal{S}_n$.

Cyclic polygons in classical geometry


Stabilization of coefficients for partition polynomials

Abstract: We find that a wide variety of families of partition statistics stabilize in a fashion similar to $p_k(n)$, the number of partitions of n with k parts, which satisfies $p_k(n) = p_{k+1}(n + 1), k \geq n/2$. We bound the regions of stabilization, discuss variants on the phenomenon, and give the limiting sequence in many cases as the coefficients of a single-variable generating function. Examples include many statistics that have an Euler product form, partitions with prescribed subsums, and plane overpartitions.

\section{Introduction}

Consider a set of combinatorial objects $\{\alpha\}$ with statistics $wt(\alpha)$ and $t(\alpha)$, thinking of $wt(\alpha)$ as the primary descriptor.  Let $G(z,q)$ be its two-variable generating function, that is, if $p(n,k)$ is the number of objects $\alpha$ with $wt(\alpha) = n$ and $t(\alpha) = k$,
 \[
 G(z,q) = \sum_{n,k \in \mathbb{N} \bigcup \{0\}} p(n,k) q^n z^k\,  \text{.}
 \]

An important example occurs when the generating function
 $G(z,q)$ has the Euler product form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:product}
G(z,q) = \prod_{i \geq 1} \frac{1}{(1-z q^i)^{a_i}}
\end{equation}
with $a_i \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \bigcup \{0\}$.
We let  $F_n(z)$ denote the $q^n$ coefficient of $G(z,q)$ which is a polynomial in $z$, so
\[
G(z,q) = \sum_n F_n(z) q^n, \quad  \, F_n(z) = \sum_k p(n,k) z^k \, .
\]

For $a_i = 1$ this is the generating function for partitions of weight $wt(\alpha) = n$ with number of parts $t(\alpha) = k$.  It is a well-known fact in partition theory that $p(n,k)$ for $k$ nearly equal to $n$ has a value independent of $n$: $p(n,n-b)$ is the number of partitions of $b$ for $b\leq\frac{n}{2}$.  A similar result holds for plane partitions of $n$ indexed by their trace \cite[p. 199]{Andrews_book} or \cite[Corollary 5.3]{Stanley}.

This phenomenon, which we call {\sl stabilization,}  is widespread in generating functions of combinatorial interest, even those of greater complexity.  The purpose of this paper is to describe this behavior in more general cases, and consider some illustrative examples and variations.
We found the polynomial framework to be well suited to these problems rather than a direct approach.  The arguments should be adaptable to a wide variety of cases.

We would like to thank the anonymous referee for a careful readthrough: noting typos, improving exposition, and suggesting occasional strengthening of theorems for which we had been hesitant to extend our reach.  This article is substantially improved from their efforts.

\section{ Basic Infinite Product Generating Functions }

Let  $G(z,q)$ be an infinite product generating function of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:new_genfct}
G(z,q) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty F_n(z) q^n =  \prod_{j=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(1-z^{b(j)} q^{c(j)})^{a_j}}.
 \end{equation}
 where we assume that the number of $j$ for which $c(j) = t$ for any $t$ is finite, so that the series converges. We find that if the $c$ grow sufficiently faster than the $b$, the upper ends of the $F_n(z)$ stabilize, to the coefficients of a single-variable generating function which we can give.

  Let ${\mathcal F}$ denote the set of all nonnegative integer sequences with finite support.
  For ${\bf e} = (e_1,e_2,\dots) \in {\mathcal F}$
set
 \[
 \mu(\mathbf{e}) = (c(1)^{e_1}c(2)^{e_2}\cdots),\quad
 \nu(\mathbf{e}) = (b(1)^{e_1}b(2)^{e_2}\cdots)
 \]
to denote  the partitions with parts $c(j)$ (resp. $b(j)$) appearing $e_j$ times.
A direct expansion of the generating functions yields
an explicit form  for the polynomial $F_n(z)$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:take_away}
F_n (z)
 &= &
\sum_{k=0}^n z^k  \,   \sum_{{\mu(\mathbf{e}) \vdash n} \atop {\nu(\mathbf{e}) \vdash k}} \prod_{i \geq 1}
  \binom{ a_i+e_i-1}{e_i}
  \end{eqnarray}
  We will compare the coefficients of $F_n(z)$ with those of the expansion of
  \[
  \prod_{i=1}^\infty
  \frac{1}{ (1-z^{b(i)})^{a_i}} =
  \sum_{k=0}^\infty z^k \, \sum_{ \nu( {\bf e}) \vdash k} \, \prod_{i\geq 1} \binom{ a_i + e_i -1}{ e_i} .
  \]

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:stabliztion2}
 Suppose that the exponents  satisfy $a_1 = 1 = b(1) = c(1)$.
 If there exists a positive integer $m \geq 2$ such that
 \begin{equation}\label{eq:stable2}
 m \cdot b(j) \leq c (j), \quad j \geq 2  ,
 \end{equation}
 then
 \\
 (a)
 for $k > n/m $, $\left[z^k \right] F_n(z) = \left[z^{k+1} \right] F_{n+1} (z)$.
 \\
 (b)
  If  $c(j) - b(j) > 0$ for all $j>1$ and the set of $j$ for which $c(j) - b(j)$ takes a given value is finite for any fixed difference,
  then for $\ell \leq \lfloor n/m \rfloor$,
  \[
  \left[ z^{n-\ell}\right]F_n(z) = \left[z^{\ell}\right] \prod_{j \geq 2} \frac{1}{(1-z^{c(j)-b(j)})^{a_j}} .
  \]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(a)
From the explicit form (\ref{eq:take_away}) of the polynomial $F_n(z)$, we can expand it as
\begin{eqnarray}
F_n (z)
 &= &
\sum_{k=0}^n z^k  \,   \sum_{{\mu(\mathbf{e}) \vdash n} \atop {\nu(\mathbf{e}) \vdash k}} \prod_{i \geq 1}
  \binom{ a_i+e_i-1}{e_i}
  \nonumber
\\
&=& \sum_{k=0}^n \sum_{e_1=0}^k z^{b(1) e_1}
 \sum_{{\mu^-(\mathbf{e}) \vdash n - c(1)e_1} \atop {\nu^-(\mathbf{e}) \vdash k - b(1)e_1}} z^{k-b(1)e_1}
  \prod_{i \geq 2}  \left( {{a_i+e_i-1} \atop {e_i}} \right)  .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

Now if the integer sequence ${\bf e}$ gives a contribution to $[z^{k+1}]F_{n+1}(z)$ and $e_1>0$, then we define
${\bf e}'$
as the integer sequence
all of whose  terms  agree with ${\bf e}$ except for $j=1$ where we set $e_1'=e_1-1$.
In this way, we obtain all the possible terms contributing to $[z^k]F_n(z)$.
Conversely, any term for $[z^k]F_n(z)$ gives a contribution to $[z^{k+1}]F_{n+1}(z)$ by simply adding
1 to its first component.

The result reduces to showing that any contribution to $[z^{k+1}]F_{n+1}(z)$ indexed by ${\bf e}$
must have $e_1>0$.

We introduce the notation for the modified partitions
\[
 \mu^{-}(\mathbf{e}) = (c(2)^{e_2} c(3)^{e_3} \cdots),\quad
 \nu^{-}(\mathbf{e}) = (b(2)^{e_2}  b(3)^{e_3} \cdots)  .
 \]
Now assume that  the partition with $\mu({\bf e}) \vdash n$ and $\nu({\bf e}) \vdash k$ gives a contribution to $[z^{k+1}]F_{n+1}(z)$ but
  $e_1 = 0$. So $\mu^-(\mathbf{e}) \vdash n$ and $\nu^-(\mathbf{e}) \vdash k$, but if $c(j) \geq m \cdot b(j)$ for all $j \geq 2$,
  then $\vert \mu^-({\bf e}) \vert \geq m \vert \nu^-({\bf e}) \vert$.
Hence  if $ k > \frac{n}{m}$, we find that $\vert \mu^{-}({\bf e}) \vert > n$, a contradiction.  Thus all terms in both expansions are the same, and so the coefficients are equal.  This proves part (a).

For part (b), we begin by forming a new partition as follows.
First subtract $b(j)$ from each $c(j)$ and consider the partition
$\lambda(\mathbf{e}) = ((c(2)-b(2))^{e_2}\dots)$.  This removes exactly the amount $\vert \nu^{-}(\mathbf{e})\vert$ from $\vert \mu^{-}(\mathbf{e})\vert$, so
\begin{eqnarray}
F_n (z)
&=& \sum_{k=0}^n \sum_{e_1=0}^k z^{k}
 \sum_{{\lambda(\mathbf{e}) \vdash n - k} \atop {\nu^-(\mathbf{e}) \vdash k - b(1)e_1}} \prod_{i \geq 2}  \left( {{a_i+e_i-1} \atop {e_i}} \right)
\nonumber
\\
&=& \sum_{k=0}^n z^{k}
 \sum_{{\lambda(\mathbf{e}) \vdash n - k} \atop {\vert \nu^-(\mathbf{e}) \vert \leq k}} \prod_{i \geq 2}  \left( {{a_i+e_i-1} \atop {e_i}} \right) . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

By hypothesis, the parts of $\lambda$ satisfy $c(j) - b(j) \geq (m-1)b(j)$.
If $k = n-\ell > \lfloor n/m \rfloor$, then $\ell < \lfloor n \frac{m-1}{m} \rfloor$.
 If $\lambda(\mathbf{e}) \vdash n-k = \ell$, then $\nu^-(\mathbf{e}) \leq \frac{\ell}{m-1} \leq k$.
 Thus the sum runs over all $\mathbf{e}$ for which $\lambda(\mathbf{e}) \vdash \ell$ with parts $c(j) - b(j)$.  But this is exactly the coefficient of $z^{\ell}$ in the expansion claimed:
 \[
 \left[ z^{n-\ell}\right]F_n(z) = \left[z^{\ell}\right] \prod_{j \geq 2} \frac{1}{(1-z^{c(j)-b(j)})^{a_j}} \, \text{ .}
 \]
\end{proof}

By the technique of proof, we have a slight improvement in a special case of hand enumerators of prefabs
 (\cite{Bender_Goodman}, \cite[page 92]{Wilf}).

\begin{corollary}
Suppose $a_1=1$.
If  $F_n(z) = [q^n] \prod_{j=1}^\infty (1-zq^j)^{- a_j}$,
 then
  for $k  \geq n/2$, $\left[z^k \right] F_n(z) = \left[z^{k+1} \right] F_{n+1} (z)$.
\end{corollary}

By the proof, we find that the generating function for the stabilized coefficients gives an upper bound outside the range of stability.

\begin{corollary}
With the hypotheses of the Theorem,
\[
 \left[ z^{n-\ell}\right]F_n(z) \leq \left[z^{\ell}\right] \prod_{j \geq 2} \frac{1}{(1-z^{c(j)-b(j)})^{a_j}} ,
 \quad 0 \leq \ell \leq n.
 \]
\end{corollary}

Variants of stabilization exist in several guises.  If the $b$ grow faster than the bound of the previous theorem, we find that the smaller end of the polynomials stabilize instead of the larger (and $b$ and $c$ staying within a given ratio range will permit both phenomena).  We also note that it is possible for the larger coefficients of a sequence of polynomials to stabilize in periods, i.e., the coefficients match those of a polynomial every 2 or more steps further along.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:stabilization2}
(a)
Let $\{ b(j)\}$ and $\{ c(j)\}$ be two strictly increasing sequences of integers, positive except that
$b(1)=0$.
 Let $F_n(z) = [q^n]\prod_{j=1}^\infty (1-z^{ b(j) } q^{ c(j) })^{  - a_j  }$ with $a_1=1$.
If  there exists a positive integer $m $ such that for all $j \geq 2$
 \[
 (m+1) b(j) > c(j) ,
 \]
then
\[
[z^k] F_n(z)  = \, [ z^k] F_{n+ c(1)}(z), \quad 0 \leq k \leq n/(m+1).
\]
(b)
Let $a_1=0, a_2=1$.
If
$F_n(z) = [q^n]\prod_{j=2}^\infty (1-z q^{ j})^{  - a_j  }$, then
$\deg(F_n) = \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$
and
\[
[z^k] F_n(z) = \, [z^{k+1}] F_{n+2}(z) , \quad  k \geq n/3 .
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let ${\bf e}$ be a sequence of non-negative integers with finite support.
By (\ref{eq:take_away}), for the coefficients $[z^k]F_n(z)$ and $[z^k] F_{n+c(1)}(z)$, we need to consider the following two sets of
finitely supported nonnegative integer sequences:
\begin{eqnarray*}
S_n &=&
 \{ {\bf e} \in {\mathcal F} : | \mu({\bf e}) | = n,  \, | \nu({\bf e} ) | =k \},
 \\
S_{n+c(1)} &=&
  \{ {\bf f} \in {\mathcal F} : | \mu({\bf f}) | = n+c(1),  \, | \nu({\bf f} ) | =k \} .
\end{eqnarray*}
We construct a bijection between these two sets. Given ${\bf e} \in S_n$, we take the
corresponding ${\bf f}$ with $f_i=e_i$ for $2 \leq i$ since $b(1)=0$.
Next write out $ | \mu({\bf e}) | = n$
 and $ | \mu({\bf f}) | = n+c(1)$:
\[
n= \sum_{j \geq 1} c(j) e_j, \quad n+c(1) = c(1) f_1 + \sum_{j \geq 2} c(j) e_j .
\]
The term $f_1$ uniquely determines a preimage $e_1$
provided $f_1>0$. But $f_1$ must be positive for $k \leq n/(m+1)$ since
\[
\sum_{j\geq 2} c(j) f_j = \sum_{j \geq 2} c(j) e_j < (m+1) \sum_{j \geq 2} b(j) e_j  = (m+1)k  \leq n.
\]
Finally, the coefficients themselves agree; that is,  $[z^k] F_n(z) = [z^k] F_{n+c(1)}(z)$:
\[
  \prod \left\{ \binom{ a_i + e_i -1}{ e_i} : {\bf e} \in S_n \right\} =
  \prod \left\{ \binom{ a_i + f_i -1}{ f_i} : {\bf f} \in S_{n+c(1)} \right\}
\]
since the above binomial coefficients are all equal for $i \geq 2$ and when $i=1$ they both reduce to $1$ since $a_1=1$.

For part (b), let
$S_n = \{ {\bf e } \in {\mathcal F} :
\mu({\bf e}) \vdash n, \nu({\bf e} ) \vdash k\}$
while
$S_{n+2}=
 \{ {\bf f } \in {\mathcal F} :
\mu({\bf f}) \vdash n+2, \nu({\bf f} ) \vdash k+1\}$.
We can construct a bijection between these two sets as in part (a) provided $f_2 >0$ when $k \geq n/3$.
Assume that $f_2=0$ is possible. Then $\sum f_j = k+1$ while $\sum_{j \geq 3} j f_j = n+2$. On the other hand,
$3(k+1) \geq \sum_{j \geq 3} j f_j $ which yields a contradiction.
\end{proof}

 \section{Partitions With Prescribed Subsums}\label{section:subsums}

Fix a positive integer $m$  and integer $i$ so $1 \leq i \leq m$.  Canfield-Savage-Wilf \cite[Section 3]{CSW} introduced the generating function
\[
G_{m,i}(z,q) = \prod_{j=1}^\infty \,
\prod_{b=1}^{i-1} \frac{1}{ 1- z^{j-1} q^{ (j-1)m+b}} \, \prod_{b=i}^m \frac{1}{ 1- z^{j} q^{ (j-1)m+b}}
\]
to describe partitions with prescribed subsums. They let
$\Lambda_{m,i}(n,k)$ be the number of partitions $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\cdots, \lambda_n)$ of $n$
such that the sum of those parts $\lambda_j$ whose indices $j$ are congruent to $i$ modulo $m$ is $k$;
that is,
\[
\sum_{ j :  j \equiv i \, ({\rm mod} \, m)} \lambda_j = k .
\]
Then they found
\[
\sum_{n,k \geq 0} \Lambda_{m,i}(n,k) z^k q^n = G_{m,i}(z,q).
\]

We begin by recovering a result for
$\Lambda_{2,2}(n,k)$ in \cite[Theorem 1]{CSW} and \cite{Yuri}
by reformulating it  in terms of the generating function
$G_{2,2}(z,q)$  and stabilization of polynomial coefficients.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:n-mk}
Let $m \geq 2$ and $1 \leq b < m$. Let $G(z,q)= \prod_{j=1}^\infty (1-z^{j-1} q^{(j-1)m+b} )^{-1}$
and $A_n(z) = [q^n] G(z,q)$.  Then for $ 0 \leq k \leq n/(m+1)$  we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item\quad
$[z^k] A_n(z) = [z^k] A_{n+b}(z)$,
\item\quad
if $n-mk$ is not divisible by $b$, then
$[z^k] A_n(z) = 0$,
\item\quad
if $n-mk$ is divisible by $b$ and $bk \leq n/(m+1)$, then
$[z^k] A_n(z) = p(k)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first part is a direct consequence of the last theorem.

For part (2), in Theorem \ref{thm:stabilization2} let $c(j) = m(j-1)+b$ and $b(j)=j-1$.  When all $a_j =1$, $[z^j]F_n(z)$ is the number of all ${\bf e} \in {\mathcal F}$ such that $\mu({\bf e}) \vdash n$ and $\nu({\bf e}) \vdash k$.
Consider
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:n-mk}
n
&=&| \mu({\bf e})| = \sum_{j \geq 1} e_j [ m(j-1) + b]
\nonumber
\\
&=&
m \sum_{j \geq 1} e_j (j-1) + b  \sum_{j \geq 1} e_j
\nonumber
\\
&=&
mk + b  \sum_{j \geq 1} e_j .
\end{eqnarray}
Hence $n-mk$ must be divisible by $b$ for any nonzero choice of {\bf e}.

For part (3),
assume $0 \leq bk \leq n/(m+1)$ and that $n-mk$ is divisible by $b$.
Let {\bf e} be any solution to $\nu( {\bf e})=k$. Note that this does not give
a constraint for the choice of $e_1$. On the other hand, the choice of $e_1$ by (\ref{eq:n-mk}) must be
\[
e_1 = (n-mk)/b - \sum_{j\geq 2} e_j, \quad e_1 \geq 0
\]
to yield $\mu ({\bf e}) = n$.
Hence, $0\leq [z^k] F_n(z) \leq p(k)$.
Finally,
the inequality $0 \leq bk \leq n/(m+1)$ shows that $e_1\geq 0$ always holds. Hence,
$[z^k] F_n(z)=p(k)$.
\end{proof}

 \begin{theorem}
  Let  $G_A(z,q)=\prod_{k=1}^\infty ( 1-z^{k} q^{2k-1} )^{-1}$
  and $G_B(z,q)= \prod_{k=1}^\infty ( 1-z^{k} q^{2k} )^{-1}$, so $G_{2,2}(z,q) = G_A(z,q) G_B(z,q)$. Then the coefficients of the polynomials
 $F_n(z)= [q^n]  G_{2,2}(z,q)$ satisfy
  \[
   [z^{k}] F_n(z) = [z^{k}] F_{n+1}(z) = \sum_{\ell=0}^k p(\ell) p(k-\ell), \quad 0 \leq k \leq n/3,
  \]
  where $p(\ell)$ is the number of partitions of $\ell$, as usual.
  \end{theorem}
  \begin{proof}
 Let $A_n(z)=[q^n]G_A(z,q)$ and $B_n(z) = [q^n]G_B(z,q)$. The generating function $G_B(z,q)$ has the explicit expansion
  \[
  G_B(z,q) = \sum_{j=0}^\infty p(j) z^j q^{2j}
  \]
  so $B_{2k+1}(z)=0$ while $B_{2k}(z) = p(k) z^k$.
  We also know by Proposition \ref{prop:n-mk} that
  \[
  [z^j] A_n(z) = p(j), \quad 0 \leq j \leq n/3.
  \]
  Next we have that
  \[
  F_n(z) = \sum_{\ell=0}^{n/2} A_{n-2\ell}(z) B_{2\ell}(z) = \sum_{\ell=0}^{n/2}  p(\ell) z^\ell A_{n-2\ell}(z)
  \]
  Examine the coefficient $[z^k]F_n(z)$ for $0 \leq k \leq n/3$:
  \[
  [z^k]F_n(z) = [z^k] \sum_{\ell=0}^{n/2}  p(\ell) z^\ell A_{n-2\ell}(z)
  =\sum_{\ell=0}^{n/2} p(\ell) \, [z^{k-\ell} ] A_{n-2\ell}(z)
  \]
  Since $k-\ell \leq (n-2\ell)/3$ for $0\leq \ell \leq k$ and $k\leq n/3$,
  we find    $[z^{k - \ell}] A_{n - 2 \ell}(z) = p(k - \ell)$.
  We conclude that
    \[
  [z^k]F_n(z)= \sum_{\ell=0}^{k} p(\ell) \, p( k - \ell) .
  \]
   \end{proof}

In order to investigate more general cases for the
 polynomials $F_n(z) = [q^n] G_{m,i}(z,q)$ it is convenient to rewrite the generating function as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:new_eq}
G_{m,i}(z,q)=
\left( \prod_{b=1}^{i-1} \frac{1}{1-q^b} \, \right) \,
\prod_{a=1}^\infty \, \prod_{d=0}^{m-1} \frac{1}{ 1-z^a q^{ i+ (a-1) m + d}}.
\end{equation}
We wish to find a useful form for the coefficient $[z^j] F_n(z)$.  As usual, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
[q^n] G_{m,i}(z,q)
&& =
\sum_{s=0}^n [q^{n-s}] \left( \prod_{b=1}^{i-1} \frac{1}{1-q^b} \, \right) \,
[q^s] \prod_{a=1}^{\infty} \prod_{d=0}^{m-1} \frac{1}{ 1- z^{a} q^{i+ (a-1)m+d}}
\\
&&= \quad
\sum_{s=0}^n [q^{n-s}] \left( \prod_{b=1}^{i-1}\,
 \sum_{ f_b=0}^\infty \,  \left(q^b \right)^{f_b} \, \right)
\\
&&
\qquad
\times \quad
[q^s] \prod_{a=1}^{\infty} \prod_{d=0}^{m-1} \, \sum_{ f_{(a,d)}=0}^\infty
\left(z^{a} q^{ i+(a-1)m+d}  \right)^{f_{(a,d)}}
\end{eqnarray*}
A typical term of the above expansion is indexed by a pair of partitions $(\rho, \mu)$
where $\rho \vdash n-s$ where each part of $\rho$ is $<i$ while $\mu \vdash s$ where
each part of $\mu$ is $\geq i$. We write the parts of $\mu$ as $\mu_{(a,d)}$ with multiplicity
$e_{\mu(a,d)}$ where $a \geq 1$ and $0 \leq d < m$. By construction, we find that
\[
s = \sum_{a,d} e_{\mu(a,d)} \mu_{(a,d)}.
\]
while, of course, no part of $\rho$ has a contribution to $z$.

Each part $\mu_{(a,d)}$ of $\mu$ with multiplicity $e_{\mu(a,d)}$ contributes the power of $z$
\[
 \left( z^a \right)^{e_{\mu(a,d)}} = z^{ a e_{ \mu(a,d)}},
\]
so the total contribution from $\mu$ is
\[
\sum_{a,d} a e_{\mu(a,d)}.
\]

We prove a few lemmas in preparation for the next theorem.

\begin{lemma}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:coeff_F}
\lefteqn{
[z^j] F_n(z)
}
\nonumber
\\
&& = \sum_{s=ji}^n  p(n-s, < i) \,  \#\{  \mu \vdash s :   \textrm{all parts of } \mu \textrm{ are } \geq  i, \sum_{a,d} a e_{\mu(a,d)}=j   \}
\end{eqnarray}
where $p(n-s, < i)$ denotes the number of all partitions of $n-s$ all of whose parts are strictly less than $i$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This expression for $[z^j] F_n(z)$ follows directly from the generating function except for the
range of summation.
Let $\mu$ be a partition of $s$. Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
s &=& \sum_{a,d} [ i + m (a-1) + d] e_{\mu(a,d)}
\\
&\geq& \sum_{a,d} [ i + i (a-1) ] e_{\mu(a,d)}
\\
&=&
i \sum_{a,d} a e_{\mu(a,d)} = ij .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}

Let $r$ denote the number of  parts of $\mu$ while $t$ denotes  the number of parts with $a\geq 2$ so $r-t$ gives the number of
parts with $a=1$. Note that
\[
r = \sum_{a,d} e_{\mu(a,d)}.
\]

\begin{lemma}  Given the partition $\mu$, we have the bound $j-r \geq t$, and can rewrite $s$ as
$$s = i r + m (j-r) + \sum_{a,d} d e_{\mu(a,d)}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\mu \vdash s$, we find that
\begin{eqnarray*}
s &=&
\sum_{a,d} e_{\mu(a,d)} \, [ i + (a-1) m + d ]
\\
&=&
i \, \sum_{a,d} e_{\mu(a,d)}  + m \sum_{a,d} (a-1) e_{\mu(a,d)} + \sum_{a,d} d e_{\mu(a,d)}
\\
&=&
i r + m (j-r) + \sum_{a,d} d e_{\mu(a,d)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For the bound, consider
\[
j-r = \sum_{a,d} (a-1) e_{\mu(a,d)} \geq \sum_{a \geq 2, d} e_{\mu(a,d)} \geq t.
\]

\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
Let $\mu$ be a partition of $s$ all of whose parts are $\geq i$. If
$m \geq i+2$ and
$j > s /(i+1)$, then $\mu$ must have at least one part of size $i$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We now assume that $m \geq i+2$ and that the part $i$ does not appear in $\mu$.
In particular,  for any part of $\mu$ of the form $i +d$, with $a=1$, $d$ must be strictly positive.
Then we have a refinement of the above bounds:
\begin{eqnarray*}
s &\geq&
i r + m (j-r) + \sum_{a,d} d e_{\mu(a,d)}
\geq
i r + (i+2) (j-r) + \sum_{ d} d e_{1,d}
\\
&\geq&
i r + (i+2) (j - r) + (r-t)
\\
&\geq&
 i r + (i+1) (j - r) + t + (r-t)
 \\
 &=&
 (i+1) [ r + (j-r)] = (i+1) j.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence the partition $\mu$ must have $i$ as a part; otherwise, $(i+1)j >s$  which contradicts our assumption.
\end{proof}

With these preparations, we will show that

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:subsums}
Let $m \geq 1$ and $1 \leq i \leq m$. Set $F_n(z) = [ q^n] G_{m,i}(z,q)$ where
$G_{m,i}(z,q)$ is given by (\ref{eq:new_eq}).
 If $m>i+1$  and $j> \frac{n}{i+1}$, then
\[
[z^j] F_n(z) = [z^{j-1}] F_{n-i}(z)  .
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By (\ref{eq:coeff_F}), we need to show that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
 \sum_{s=ji }^{ n}  p(n-s, < i) \, \# \{   \mu \vdash s :  \textrm{all parts of } \mu \textrm{ are } \geq  i, \sum_{a,d} a e_{\mu(a,d)}=j   \}
 \\
 &&
 =
  \sum_{s'= (j-1) i }^{n- i }  p(n-s'-i, < i) \,
  \\
  &&
  \quad
  \times  \quad
  \# \{    \nu \vdash s'  :  \textrm{all parts of } \nu \textrm{ are } \geq  i, \sum_{a,d} a e_{\nu(a,d)}=j  -1 \}
\end{eqnarray*}
These two coefficients are equal provided we construct a bijection $T$ between
\begin{eqnarray*}
U_s &=&  \{   \mu \vdash s :  \textrm{all parts of } \mu \textrm{ are } \geq  i, \sum_{a,d} a e_{\mu(a,d)}=j   \}
 \\
 V_{s'}
 &=&
  \{    \nu \vdash s'  :  \textrm{all parts of } \nu \textrm{ are } \geq  i, \sum_{a,d} a e_{\nu(a,d)}=j  -1 \}.
\end{eqnarray*}
when $s' = s-i$. Let $\mu \in U_s$. By Lemma 7, the partition $\mu$ must have a part equal to $i$.
Let $\nu=T(\mu)$ be the partition of $s-i$ obtained by deleting one part from $\mu$ of size $i$. It is easy
to verify that $\nu \in V_{s'}$. The inverse of $T$ is simply adding a part of size $i$ to $\nu \in V_{s'}$.
 \end{proof}

In other words, Theorem \ref{thm:subsums} shows that if $m>i+1$ and $j> n/(i+1)$, then the subsums satisfy
$\Lambda_{m,i}(n,j)= \Lambda_{m,i}(n-i,j-1)$.

\section{Laurent Type Polynomials }\label{section:laurent}

A more general case consists of generating functions that involve $z$ raised to different powers;
ultimately, we might treat the case of the generating function
\[
G(z,q) = \prod_{(i,j) \in \mathbb{Z}^2 \setminus (0,0)} {(1 - z^i q^j)}^{a_{ij}} \, .
\]

An important example comes from the generating function for the crank statistic for partitions.
Let
\[
C(z,q) = \prod_{k\geq 1} \frac{1-q^k}{(1-z q^k)(1-z^{-1} q^k)} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \, M_n(z) q^n
\]
where $M_n(z)$ is a symmetric Laurent polynomial.
From the definition of the crank, the coefficient of $z^{n-k}$ in $M_n(z)$,
for $ k \leq \frac{n}{2}$, equals  the number of partitions of $k$ that include no 1s.
In particular, the coefficients of $M_n(z)$ stabilize in the ranges for powers $n-k$ and $-n+k$
for $0\leq k \leq \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$.  It is suggested in \cite{BG2} that the zeros  for the crank polynomial converge to
the unit circle.
Another example is  the generating
function
\[
\prod_{k=1}^\infty \frac{ 1}{ (1-z q^k)^{k}} \, \frac{1}{ (1-z^{-1} q^k)^k } \, \frac{1}{ (1-q^k)^{2k}}.
\]
which comes from the Donaldson-Thomas Theory in algebraic geometry and whose asymptotics were studied in   \cite{siam10}.

\begin{lemma}\label{thm:freezing1}
 Let $\{A_n(z)\}_{n=0}^\infty$ be a sequence of polynomials, such that the degree of $A_n(z)$ is $n$, whose coefficients satisfy
 \[
 [z^{n-k}] A_n(z) = [ z^{n+1-k}]A_{n+1}(z), \quad 0 \leq k \leq n/m
 \]
 for some integer $m \geq 2$.
 Let $\{B_n(z)\}_{n=0}^\infty$ be another sequence of polynomials. Then the coefficients of the
 polynomial sequence $\{F_n(z)\}_{n=0}^\infty$
 where
 \[
 F_n(z) = \sum_{\ell=0}^n \, A_{\ell}(z) B_{n-\ell}(z^{-1})
 \]
 also satisfy
 \[
 [z^{n-k}] F_n(z) = [ z^{n+1-k}]F_{n+1}(z),  \quad 0 \leq k \leq n/m.
 \]
  \end{lemma}
 \begin{proof}
 Let $0 \leq k \leq \lfloor n/m \rfloor$. Consider $[z^{n-k}] F_n(z)$. We have
 \begin{eqnarray}
 [z^{n-k}] F_n(z)
 &=&
 [z^{n-k}]  \sum_{\ell=0}^n A_{\ell}(z) \, B_{n-\ell}(z^{-1})
 \nonumber
 \\
 &=&
\sum_{\ell=0}^n \, \sum_{a=0}^k \, [ z^{ n-k+a}] A_\ell(z) \, [ z^{-a}] B_{n-\ell}(z^{-1})
  \nonumber
 \\
 &=&
\sum_{\ell=n-k}^n \, \sum_{a=0}^{k} \, [ z^{ n-k+a}] A_\ell(z) \, [ z^{-a}] B_{n-\ell}(z^{-1})
 \label{eq:first_sum}
 \end{eqnarray}
where in the last step we note that $[z^{ n-k+a}]A_\ell(z)=0$ if $\ell < n-k$.

For $[z^{n+1-k}]F_{n+1}(z)$, we reindex $\ell$ by 1 and note that $[z^{n+1-k}]A_0(z)=0$ for all $n$, giving us the expression for $[z^{n+1-k}]F_{n+1}(z)$:
 \begin{equation}
   \label{eq:second_sum}
\sum_{\ell=n-k}^{n} \, \sum_{a=0}^{k} \, [ z^{ n+1-k+a}] A_{\ell+1}(z) \, [ z^{-a}] B_{n-\ell}(z^{-1})
\end{equation}
By assumption, we know that
\[
        [ z^{ n-k+a}] A_\ell(z)  =[ z^{ n+1-k+a}] A_{\ell+1}(z), \quad n-k \leq \ell \leq n
\]
since $0 \leq k \leq \lfloor n/m \rfloor$.  The coefficients of $[z^{-a}] B_{n-\ell}(z^{-1})$ are the same, and consequently the two sums (\ref{eq:first_sum})  and (\ref{eq:second_sum}) are
equal.
 \end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:convolution}
Given the generating function
$G(z,q) = \prod_{i \geq 1} (1-zq^i)^{-a_i}$ where $a_1=1$, let $A_n(z) = [q^n] G(z,q)$.  Let $Q(q) = \sum_{j=0}^\infty c_j q^j$.
Let $F_n(z) = [q^n] G(z,q)Q(q)$. Then the tail coefficients of $F_n(z)$ stabilize; that is,
\[
[z^{k}] F_n(z) = [z^{k+1}] F_{n+1}(z), \quad k \geq n/2.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By construction, the polynomials $F_n(z)$ have the form
\[
F_n(z) = \sum_{\ell=0}^n c_{n-\ell} A_\ell(z).
\]
Let $k \geq n/2$. Then the coefficients for $[z^{k}] F_n(z)$ and $ [z^{k+1}] F_{n+1}(z)$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
[z^{k}]  F_n(z) = \sum_{\ell=k}^n c_{n-\ell} [z^{k}  ]  A_\ell(z),
\quad
\,[z^{k+1}]F_{n+1}(z) = \sum_{j = k+1}^{n+1} c_{n+1-j} [z^{k+1}] A_{j}(z).
\end{eqnarray*}
As a consequence of Corollary 1, $c_{n-\ell} [z^{k}  ]  A_\ell(z) = c_{n+1-j} [z^{k+1}] A_{j}(z)$ for $j= \ell+1$ and $k \leq \ell \leq n$.
\end{proof}

 \begin{theorem}
 If $a_1 = b_1 = 1$, and
\[
G(z,q) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty F_n (z) q^n = \prod_{i \geq 1} {(1 - z q^i)}^{-a_i} {(1 - z^{-1} q^i)}^{-b_i} {(1 \pm q^i)}^{c_i},
\]
then the coefficients of the Laurent polynomials $F_n(z)$ satisfy
\[
[z^{n-k}] F_n(z) = [z^{n+1-k}] F_{n+1}(z), \quad [z^{-(n-k)}] F_n(z) = [z^{-(n+1-k)}] F_{n+1}(z),
\]
for $0 \leq k \leq n/2$.
 \end{theorem}

\section{ Plane Overpartition  Stabilization }

A plane partition is an array of positive integers, conventionally justified to the upper left corner of the fourth quadrant, which are weakly descending left in rows and down in columns.  A plane overpartition is a plane partition whose entries may be overlined or not according to
certain rules \cite{CSV}: in each row, the last occurrence of an integer may be overlined
(or not) and in every column, all but the first occurrence of an integer are overlined, while the first occurrence may or may not be overlined.
In \cite[Proposition 4]{CSV}, the generating function for the weighted plane overpartitions is found to be
\[
\sum_{ \Pi \,\,\textrm{is a plane overpartition}}
z^{ o(\Pi)} q^{ | \Pi |} =
\prod_{n=1}^\infty  \frac{ (1+ zq^n)^n}{  (1-q^n)^{ \lceil n/2 \rceil} (1-z^2q^n)^{ \lfloor n/2 \rfloor } }
\]
where $o( \Pi)$ is the number of overlined parts of the plane
overpartition $\Pi$.

\begin{theorem}
Let $G(z,q)$ be the generating function for the polynomials $F_n(z)$:
\[
G(z,q)=
\prod_{n=1}^\infty  \frac{ (1+ zq^n)^n}{  (1-q^n)^{ \lceil n/2 \rceil} (1-z^2q^n)^{ \lfloor n/2 \rfloor } }
=
\sum_{n=0}^\infty F_n(z) q^n .
\]
Then the coefficients of the polynomials $F_n(z)$  satisfy the stabilization condition
\[
[z^{k+1}] F_{n+1}(z) = [ z^k] F_n(z),
\]
for $k\geq  2n/3$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{A_n(z)\}$ be the polynomial sequence with generating function $G_A(z,q)$ where
\[
G_A(z,q) = \prod_{n=2}^\infty \frac{ 1}{ (1-z^2q^n)^{ \lfloor n/2 \rfloor } } =  \sum_{n=0}^\infty A_n(z) q^n
\]
and $\{ B_n(z)\}$ with generating function $G_B(z,q)$:
\[
G_B(z,q) = \prod_{n=2}^\infty (1+ zq^n)^n  = \sum_{n=0}^\infty B_n(z) q^n  .
\]
Easily, we have that $\deg(A_n) = 2 \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$.
By Theorem \ref{thm:stabilization2}, replacing $z$ by $z^2$, we also find
\[
[z^k] A_n = [ z^{k+2}] A_{n+2}, \quad k \geq 2n/3 .
\]

The degree of the polynomial $B_N(z)$ is the largest number of parts in a possible partition of $N$ drawn from a multiset of two 2s, three 3s, etc.  For $N \geq 21 = 2+2+3+3+3+4+4$, the average size of part is at least 3 and so
\[
\deg(B_N) \leq \frac{1}{3}N \, \text{.}
\]
  For smaller $N$, direct calculation shows that $\deg(B_N) \leq \frac{2}{3}N$.

It is more convenient to work with the intermediate polynomials
\[
Q_n(z) = [q^n] G_A(z,q) G_B(z,q) =\sum_{\ell=0}^n A_{n-\ell}(z) \, B_\ell(z).
\]

We have the summation formula for $[z^k] Q_n(z)$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
[z^k] Q_n(z)
&=&
\sum_{\ell=0}^n \, \sum_{a=0}^k [ z^{k-a}] A_{n - \ell}(z) \cdot [z^a] B_\ell(z)
\\
\\
&=&
\sum_{\ell \in  I_{k,n} } \,   \sum_{ a =0 }^{ \deg(B_\ell)} \, [ z^{k-a}] A_{n - \ell}(z)  \cdot [z^a] B_\ell(z)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $I_{k,n}$ is the set of indices
\[
I_{k,n} =
\left\{
\ell :
\deg(B_\ell) + \deg(A_{n - \ell }) \geq k, \,  0 \leq \ell \leq n
\right\} .
\]
We have $I_{k+2, n+2} = I_{k,n} $ since for any $B_\ell$ the matching $A_{n-\ell}$ for sums of $k$ map to the matching $A_{n+2-\ell}$ for sums of $k+2$.

We next show that
\[
\sum_{\ell \in  I_{k,n} } \,   \sum_{ a = 0}^{ \deg(B_\ell)} \, [ z^{k-a}] A_{n - \ell}(z)  \cdot [z^a] B_\ell(z)
=
\sum_{\ell \in  I_{k+2,n+2} } \,  \sum_{ a = 0}^{ \deg(B_\ell)} \, [ z^{k+2-a}] A_{n+2 - \ell}(z)  \cdot [z^a] B_\ell(z) ;
\]
To do this, we need that  all the terms $[ z^{k-a}] A_{n- \ell}$ fall into the stable range of indices.
Now
to get into the stable range, we need
\[
k-a \geq \frac{2}{3} ( n  - \ell)
\]
where $0\leq a \leq \deg B_\ell$ and $\ell \in I_{k,n}$.
We consider  the stronger condition
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{2}{3} n - \deg B_\ell  &\geq&  \frac{2}{3} ( n  - \ell) ,
\end{eqnarray*}
which reduces to
\[
\deg(B_\ell) \leq \frac{2}{3} \ell, \quad \ell \in I_{k,n}
\]
which does indeed hold.

Our next step is to define
\[
P_n(z) = (1+zq) Q_n(z).
\]
(Leaving out this factor earlier simplified the degree analysis, since without it we had the single exceptional case of $\deg (B_1) = 1$.)  We observe that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\,
[z^k] P_n (z) &=& [ z^k] Q_n(z) + [ z^{k-1}  ] Q_{n-1}(z),
\\
\,
[z^{k+1}]  P_{n+1} (z) &=&  [ z^{k+1}] Q_{n+1}(z) + [ z^{k}] Q_{n}(z) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, we have
\[
[z^k] P_n(z) = [z^{k+1}] P_{n+1}(z), \quad k \geq 2n/3 .
\]

To finish the proof, we define a polynomial family $C_n(q)$ by
\[
\prod_{n=1}^\infty  \frac{ 1 }{  (1-q^n)^{ \lceil n/2 \rceil} } = \sum_{n=0}^\infty C_n(q) .
\]
Then the polynomials $F_n(z)$ are given by
\[
F_n(z) = [q^n] C(q) \, \sum_{\ell =0}^\infty  P_\ell (z) q^\ell .
\]
By Lemma \ref{lemma:convolution},
we see that this construction maintains the stability of the coefficients of the polynomial family $\{ P_\ell(z)\}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
Let $\overline{pp}_k(n)$ be the number of plane overpartitions of $n$ with $k$ overlined parts. If $k \geq 2n/3$, then
\[
\overline{pp}_k(n) =\overline{pp}_{k+1}(n+1).
\]
\end{corollary}


Empty axis-parallel boxes

Abstract: We show that, for every set of $n$ points in the $d$-dimensional unit cube, there is an empty axis-parallel box of volume at least $\Omega(d/n)$ as $n\to\infty$ and $d$ is fixed. In the opposite direction, we give a construction without an empty axis-parallel box of volume $O(d^2\log d/n)$. These improve on the previous best bounds of $\Omega(\log d/n)$ and $O(2^{7d}/n)$ respectively.

\section{Introduction}
\paragraph{Dispersion.}
A \emph{box} is a Cartesian product of open intervals. Given a set $P\subset [0,1]^d$, we say that a
box $B=(a_1,b_1)\times \dots \times (a_d,b_d)$ is \emph{empty} if $B\cap P=\emptyset$. Let $m(P)$
be the volume of the largest empty box contained in $[0,1]^d$.
Let $m_d(n)$ be the largest number such that every $n$-point set $P\subset [0,1]^d$ admits
an empty box of volume at least $m_d(n)$. Alternatively, $m_d(n)=\min m(P)$, where the minimum
is over all $n$-point sets $P\subset [0,1]^d$.

The quantity $m(P)$ is called the \emph{dispersion} of $P$. The motivation for estimating $m_d(n)$ came  independently in several subjects.
The earliest occurrence is probably in the work of Rote and Tichy~\cite{rote_tichy} who were
motivated by the relations to $\veps$-nets in discrete geometry on one hand, and
with the relations to discrepancy theory on the other. The dispersion
also arose in the problem of estimating rank-one tensors \cite{bddg,Krieg_Rudolf,nr_tensor} and in Marcinkiewicz-type
discretizations \cite{temlyakov}. In addition, in \cite{chen_dumitrescu}, lower bounds on dispersion were
used, via a compactness argument, to give constructions with large gap between covering and independence numbers for families of axis-parallel boxes.

The obvious bound $m_d(n)\geq 1/(n+1)$ was observed in several works, including \cite{dj60,bddg,rote_tichy}.
The first non-trivial lower bound of $m_d(n)\geq \tfrac{5}{4(n+5)}$ for $d\geq 2$ is due to Dumitrescu and Jiang
\cite{dj_amidst}. In \cite{dj60} they proved, for fixed $b$ and $d$, that $(n+1) m_d(n)\geq (b+1)m_d(b)-o(1)$,
which implies that the limit
\[
  c_d\eqdef \lim_{n\to\infty} n m_d(n)
\]
exists. Indeed, for each $b$, $\liminf (n+1) m_d(n)\geq (b+1)m_d(b)$, and therefore
$\liminf (n+1)m_d(n)\geq \limsup (n+1)m_d(n)$. Since $\liminf$ is always smaller than $\limsup$,
the limit exists.

The best lower bound on $m_d(n)$ for fixed $d$ is due to Aistleitner, Hinrichs and Rudolf \cite{ahr},
which is $c_d\geq \tfrac{1}{4}\log_2 d$. In the same paper they present a proof, due to Larcher,
that $c_d\leq 2^{7d+1}$. In this note we show that the correct dependence of $c_d$ on $d$ is neither logarithmic nor exponential, but polynomial.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:crude}
The dispersion of $n$-point sets in $[0,1]^d$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
  m_d(n)\geq \frac{1}{n}\cdot \frac{2d}{e}\bigl(1-4dn^{-1/d}\bigr)\qquad\text{for all }d\text{ and all }n.\label{lowerbound:crude}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
All the logarithms in the rest of the paper are to base $e=2.718\dotsc$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:constr}
For every $d\geq 3$ and every $n\geq 1$, there is a set of at most $n$ points in $[0,1]^d$ for which the largest empty box
has volume at most $8000d^2\log d/n$.
\end{theorem}

For very large $n$, we have a slightly better lower bound.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:sharp}
Let $R,T$ be positive real numbers that satisfy $T<R_0$ and $R_0-T<\log \frac{R_0}{T}$. Then
\[
  c_d\geq R_0\exp\bigl(-\tfrac{1}{2d}(R_0-T)\bigr).
\]
In particular, $c_d\geq \frac{2d}{e}(1+e^{-2d})$ for all $d$, and $c_2\geq 1.50476$.
\end{theorem}
This improves on the aforementioned bound of $c_2\geq 5/4$ by Dumitrescu--Jiang.
Very recently the upper bound of $c_2\leq 1.8945$ was proved by Kritzinger and Wiart \cite{kritzinger_wiart}.

\paragraph{Acknowledgements.} We thank Mario Ullrich and Daniel Rudolf for comments on the earlier version of this manuscript.

\section{Proofs of the lower bounds (\texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm:crude,thm:sharp}}{Theorems 1 and 3})}
\paragraph{Averaging argument.}
We first give a simple argument for \Cref{thm:crude}. We will then show how to modify
that argument to get \Cref{thm:sharp}. We start with the common part of the two arguments.\medskip

Let $R_0>0$ be a parameter to be chosen later subject to $R_0\leq n$, and set $\delta \eqdef \tfrac{1}{2}(R_0/n)^{1/d}$.
Let $f\colon [0,R_0]\to \R_+$ be some weight function. We postpone the actual choice of $f$ until later.
We adopt the convention that $f(R)=0$ if $R\geq R_0$.

Let $B$ be the cube of volume $R_0/n$ centered at the origin, i.e., $B\eqdef\bigl[-\delta,\delta\bigr]^d$.
Using $f$, we define a function on $\R^d$ by
\[
  F(x)\eqdef f(2^dr^dn)\qquad\text{ for }\norm{x}_{\infty}=r.
\]
Because $f$ vanishes outside $[0,R_0]$, the function $F$ vanishes outside~$B$.
Put $M\eqdef n\int_B F(x)\,dx$.
Note that $M=\int_{r=0}^{\delta} \bigl(2^dnr^{d-1}d\cdot f(2^dr^d n)\bigr)\,dr=\int_0^{R_0} f(R)\,dR$.
Because
\[
  \int_{t\in \R^d} \sum_{p\in P-t} F(p)\,dt=\sum_{p\in P}\int_{t\in \R^d} F(p-t)\,dt=\sum_{p\in P}\int_{x\in \R^d} F(x)\,dx=M,
\]
it follows that there exists $t\in [\delta,1-\delta\bigr]^d$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:weightbnd}
\sum_{p\in P-t} F(p)\leq M/(1-2\delta)^d,
\end{equation}
for otherwise $\int_{[\delta,1-\delta]^d} \sum_{p\in P-t} F(p)\,dt>M$.
It suffices to find a large box inside $B$ that is empty with respect to the set $P'\eqdef (P-t)\cap B$, for then we may obtain
an empty box of the same volume inside $[0,1]^d$ after translating by~$t$.

To find the empty box, we shave the sides off~$B$. Namely, for each point $p\in P'$
there is a coordinate of largest absolute value. If there is more than
one such coordinate, break the tie arbitrarily. Call this coordinate \emph{dominant}
for~$p$. Write the coordinates of $p\in P'$ as $p=(p_1,\dotsc,p_d)$. For each $i\in [d]$, put
\begin{align*}
  a_i&\eqdef\min \{-p_i : i\text{ is dominant for }p\in P'\text{ and }p_i\leq 0\},\\
  b_i&\eqdef\min \{\phantom{-}p_i : i\text{ is dominant for }p\in P'\text{ and }p_i\geq 0\}.
\end{align*}
Should the set in the definition of $a_i$ be empty, we put $a_i=\delta$.
Similarly, should the set in the definition of $b_i$ be empty, we put $b_i=\delta$.
The box
\[
  B'\eqdef \prod_{i=1}^d (-a_i,b_i)
\]
is evidently disjoint from $P-t$ and is contained in~$B$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem}
The volume of $B'$ is at least $\frac{R_0}{n} \prod_{p\in P'} \sqrt{\frac{\norm{p}_{\infty}}{\delta}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix any coordinate $i\in [d]$.

Suppose first that the two sets in the definitions of $a_i$ and $b_i$ are non-empty.
Let $p,q\in P-t$ be the points such that $a_i=-p_i$ and $b_i=q_i$.
By the AM--GM inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:two}
  \frac{a_i+b_i}{2\delta}\geq \frac{\sqrt{a_ib_i}}{\delta}=\sqrt{\frac{\norm{p}_{\infty}}{\delta}}\cdot\sqrt{\frac{\norm{q}_{\infty}}{\delta}}.
\end{equation}

Suppose next that only one of the two sets in the definitions of $a_i$ and $b_i$ is non-empty.
Say $a_i=-p_i$ for some $p\in P-t$ and $b_i=\delta$ (the other case being symmetric). Then
by a similar application of the AM--GM inequality we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:one}
  \frac{a_i+b_i}{2\delta}\geq \sqrt{\frac{\norm{p}_{\infty}}{\delta}}.
\end{equation}

By taking the product of \eqref{eq:two} and \eqref{eq:one} as appropriate over all $i\in [d]$, and noting that
every point has only one dominant coordinate,
we obtain
\[
  \vol B'=(2\delta)^d \cdot \prod_{i=1}^d \frac{a_i+b_i}{2\delta}\geq (2\delta)^d\prod_{p\in P'} \sqrt{\frac{\norm{p}_{\infty}}{\delta}}.\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Simple weight function (proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm:crude}}{Theorem 1}).}
The simplest choice of the constant $R_0$ and weight function $f$ is
\begin{align*}
  R_0&\eqdef 2d,\\
  f(R)&\eqdef \log \frac{R_0}{R}.
\end{align*}
The condition $R_0\leq n$ is satisfied unless $2d\leq n$, but in that case \Cref{thm:crude} holds vacuously.

With this choice of $R_0$ and $f$, we obtain $M=\int_0^{R_0} f(R)\,dR=R_0$ and $F(x)=d\log \frac{\delta}{\norm{x}_{\infty}}$ on $B$.
So, from \Cref{lem} we obtain
\begin{align*}
  \vol B'&\geq \frac{R_0}{n} \exp\biggl(-\tfrac{1}{2}\sum_{p\in P'}\log \frac{\delta}{\norm{p}_{\infty}}\biggr)=
  \frac{R_0}{n} \exp\Bigl(-\tfrac{1}{2d}\sum_{p\in P'} F(p)\Bigr)\\
\intertext{which in view of \eqref{eq:weightbnd} is}
&\geq \frac{R_0}{n}\exp\Bigl(-\frac{1}{2d} M(1-2\delta)^{-d}\Bigr)=\frac{R_0}{n}\exp\Bigl(-\bigl(1-(R_0/n)^{1/d}\bigr)^{-d}\Bigr)\\
\intertext{which, since $(2d)^{1/d}\leq 2$, is}
&\geq \frac{R_0}{n}\exp\bigl(-(1-2n^{-1/d})^{-d}\bigr)\geq \frac{R_0}{n}\exp\bigl(-(1-2dn^{-1/d})^{-1}\bigr).\\
\intertext{Using $\exp(-(1-x)^{-1})=e^{-1}\cdot \exp(-x-x^2-\dotsb)\geq e^{-1}\cdot (1-x-x^2-\dotsb)\geq e^{-1}(1-2x)$ for $x\in[0, 1/2]$, we may deduce that}
\vol B' &\geq \frac{1}{n}\cdot\frac{2d}{e}\bigl(1-4dn^{-1/d}\bigr).
\end{align*}

\paragraph{Better weight function (proof of \texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm:sharp}}{Theorem 3}).}
Let $T$ and $R_0$ be as in the statement of \Cref{thm:sharp}.
Since the aim is to prove a bound on $c_d$, we may assume that $n$ is sufficiently large.
Define
\begin{equation}
  f(R)\eqdef
    \begin{cases}
      \log \frac{R_0}{T}&\text{if }R\leq T,\\
      \log \frac{R_0}{R}&\text{if } T<R\leq R_0.\\
    \end{cases}
\end{equation}
It is readily computed that $M=(\int_0^T+\int_T^{R_0})f(R)\,dR=R_0-T$. Since $(1-2\delta)^d\to 1$, it follows that
$M/(1-2\delta)^d<\log \frac{R_0}{T}$, for large enough $n$.
Because of \eqref{eq:weightbnd}, this implies that
$\sum_{x\in P'} F(x)<\log \frac{R_0}{T}$, and hence
for no point $x\in P'$ does it hold that $R\leq T$, where $R=2^dn\norm{x}_{\infty}^d$.
So, $F(x)=d\log \frac{\delta}{\norm{x}_{\infty}}$ for all $x\in P'\cap B$.
So, we may proceed as before to obtain
\begin{align*}
  \vol B'&\geq \frac{R_0}{n} \exp\Bigl(-\tfrac{1}{2d}\sum_{p\in P'} F(p)\Bigr)\geq \frac{R_0}{n} \exp\bigl( -\tfrac{1}{2d}M(1-2\delta)^{-d}\bigr).
\end{align*}
Taking the limit $n\to\infty$, the bounds on $c_d$ follows.\smallskip

The bound $c_d\geq \frac{2d}{e}(1+e^{-2d})$ is obtained by choosing $R_0=2d$ and $T=R_0\exp(-R_0)$. The bound
$c_2\geq 1.50476$ is obtained by choosing $R_0=3.69513$ and $T=0.101622$.

\section{Proof of the upper bound (\texorpdfstring{\Cref{thm:constr}}{Theorem 2})}
\paragraph{Construction outline.}
Our construction is a modification of the Hilton--Hammerseley construction. As in the
Halton--Hammerseley construction, we will select primes $p_1,\dotsc,p_d$, each of which is associated to respective coordinate direction.
As in the analysis of Halton--Hammerseley construction, we will be interested in \emph{canonical boxes}, which are the boxes\footnote{Here and elsewhere in this section we work with half-open boxes.
Since every half-open box contains an open box of the same volume, this does not impair the strength of our constructions, but
doing so will be technically advantageous.} of the form
\[
  B=\prod_{i=1}^d \left[\frac{a_i}{p_i^{k_i}},\frac{a_i+1}{p_i^{k_i}}\right).
\]
for some integers $0\leq a_i<p_i^{k_i},i=1,2,\dotsc,d$.

For a prime $p$ and a nonnegative integer $x$, consider the base-$p$ expansion of the number $x$, say
$x=\nobreak x_0+x_1p+\dotsb+x_{\ell}p^{\ell}$. Put $r_p(x)\eqdef x_0p^{-1}+x_1p^{-2}+\dotsb+x_{\ell}p^{-\ell-1}$; note that
$r_p(x)$ is the number in $[0,1)$ obtained by reversing the base-$p$ digits of~$x$.
Define the function $r\colon \Z_{\geq 0}\to [0,1]^d$ by $r(x)\eqdef \bigl(r_{p_1}(x),\dotsc,r_{p_d}(x)\bigr)$.

Our construction is broken into two stages. The set that we construct in the first stage
is an $r$-image of a certain subset of $\Z_{\geq 0}$. (Note that the usual Halton--Hammerseley construction is the $r$-image of an interval of length~$n$.)
This set has $O(n d \log d)$ elements and intersects \emph{almost} all the boxes of volume about~$1/n$.
In the second stage of the construction, we show that $d+1$ suitably chosen translates
of the first set meet all the boxes of volume~$1/n$.

\paragraph{First stage.} To simplify the proof, we will discretize the boxes we work with. We will do so by shrinking them slightly,
so that $i$'th coordinates have terminating base-$p_i$ expansions.

With hindsight we choose $p_i$ to be the $(d+i)$'th smallest prime, for each $i=1,2,\dots,d$.
Put $\gamma\eqdef p_1p_2\dots p_d$, and let $n$ be an arbitrary integer divisible by $2\gamma^{11}$.

\begin{definition}
We say that a box $\beta$ is a \emph{good box} if   it is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:goodboxform}
\beta=\prod_{i=1}^d \left[\frac{a_i}{p_i^{k_i}}+\frac{b_i}{p_i^{k_i+3}},\frac{a_i}{p_i^{k_i}}+\frac{c_i}{p_i^{k_i+3}}\right),
\end{equation}
for some integers $0\leq b_i<c_i\leq p_i^3$ and $k_i\in\Z_{\geq 0}$ for $i=1,2,\dots,d$, and whose volume is $1/4n\leq\nobreak \vol(\beta)\leq 1/n$.
Let $B=\prod_i \left[a_i/p_i^{k_i},(a_i+1)/p_i^{k_i}\right)$.
We call $(B,\beta)$ a \emph{good pair}.
\end{definition}
Since $i$'th coordinate dimension of $B$ is at most $p_i^3$ times larger than that of $\beta$, it follows that $\vol(B)\leq \gamma^3/n$.
In other words, a (discretized) box $\beta$ is good if it is contained in a canonical box $B$ that is not much larger than $\beta$.
Note that, since a good $\beta$ can sometimes be written in the form \eqref{eq:goodboxform} in more than one way,
the choice of $B$ in the definition of a good pair is, in general, not unique.\medskip

Our aim in this stage of construction is to find a set $P$ that meets every good box. In the next stage
we will superimpose several copies of $P$ to create a set that meets every large box. It is precisely
because the family of good boxes is richer than the family of canonical boxes
that we lose less in the second stage than if we used the Halton--Hammerseley construction.
\medskip

Suppose $B$ is a canonical box. Write it as $B=\prod_i\left[a_i/p_i^{k_i},(a_i+1)/p_i^{k_i}\right)$, and consider $r^{-1}(B)$. The set $r^{-1}(B)$ consists
of the solutions to the system
\begin{align*}
x&\equiv a_1'\pmod{p_1^{k_1}},\\
x&\equiv a_2'\pmod{p_2^{k_2}},\\
 &\setbox0\hbox{$\equiv$}\mathrel{\makebox[\wd0]{\vdots}}\\
x&\equiv a_d'\pmod{p_d^{k_d}},
\end{align*}
where $a_i'\eqdef r_{p_i}(a_i)p_i^{k_i}$, i.e., $a_i'$ is the integer obtained from $a_i$ by reversing its base-$p_i$ expansion.

By the Chinese Remainder theorem, the set $r^{-1}(B)$ is an infinite arithmetic progression with step $D(B)\eqdef p_1^{k_1}p_2^{k_2}\dotsb p_d^{k_d}=1/\vol(B)$.
Let $A(B)$ be the least element of $r^{-1}(B)$, so that
\[r^{-1}(B)=\lbrace A(B)+kD(B): k\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\rbrace.\]
Given a good pair $(B,\beta)$, define \[L_B(\beta)\eqdef\{ k \in\mathbb{Z}_+ : r\bigl(A(B)+kD(B)\bigr) \in \beta\}.\]

\begin{claim}\label{claim:L}
The set $\cL\eqdef \lbrace L_B(\beta):(B,\beta)\mbox{ is a good pair}\rbrace$ is of size at most $\gamma^{12}$.
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
Let $(B,\beta)$ be a good pair. Write $B$ and $\beta$ in the form
\[B=\prod_{i=1}^d \left[\frac{a_i}{p_i^{k_i}},\frac{a_i+1}{p_i^{k_i}}\right),\qquad \beta=\prod_{i=1}^d \left[\frac{a_i}{p_i^{k_i}}+\frac{b_i}{p_i^{k_i+3}},\frac{a_i}{p_i^{k_i}}+\frac{c_i}{p_i^{k_i+3}}\right).\]

We know that $r\bigl(A(B)+kD(B)\bigr)\in \beta$ is equivalent to
\begin{align*}
A(B)+kD(B)&\in a_1'+p_1^{k_1}J_1\pmod{p_1^{k_1+3}},\\
A(B)+kD(B)&\in a_2'+p_2^{k_2}J_2\pmod{p_2^{k_2+3}},\\
&\setbox0\hbox{$\in$}\mathrel{\makebox[\wd0]{\vdots}}\\
A(B)+kD(B)&\in a_d'+p_d^{k_d}J_d\pmod{p_d^{k_d+3}},
\end{align*}
where the sets $J_i$ consist of base-$p_i$ reversals of the numbers in the interval $[b_i,c_i)$ (which are $3$-digit long in base $p_i$).

On the other hand, we know that
\begin{align*}
A(B)+kD(B)&\equiv a_1'+(\alpha_1+k\delta_1)p_1^{k_1}\pmod{p_1^{k_1+3}},\\
A(B)+kD(B)&\equiv a_2'+(\alpha_2+k\delta_2)p_2^{k_2}\pmod{p_2^{k_2+3}},\\
&\setbox0\hbox{$\equiv$}\mathrel{\makebox[\wd0]{\vdots}}\\
A(B)+kD(B)&\equiv a_d'+(\alpha_d+k\delta_d)p_d^{k_d}\pmod{p_d^{k_d+3}}
\end{align*}
for some $\alpha_i,\delta_i\in\mathbb{Z}/p_i^3\mathbb{Z},i=1,2,\dots,d$. There are at most $\gamma^6$ different choices for $(\alpha_i,\delta_i)_{i=1}^d$.
Also, there are at most $\gamma^6$ different choices for $(b_i,c_i)_{i=1}^d$ satisfying $0\leq b_i<c_i\leq p_i^3$. Since $L_B(\beta)$ is determined by $(\alpha_i,\delta_i,b_i,c_i)_{i=1}^d$, the claim is true.
\end{proof}

To each canonical box $B$ of volume between $1/4 n$ and $\gamma^3/n$ we assign
a \emph{type}, so that boxes of the same type behave similarly.
Formally, let $\A(B)$ be the unique multiple of $n/\gamma^4$ satisfying
$0\leq A(B)-\A(B)<n/\gamma^4$.
Similarly,
let $\D(B)$ be the unique multiple of $n/\gamma^{11}$ satisfying \linebreak $0\leq D(B)- \D(B)< n/\gamma^{11}$.
The type of $B$ is then the pair $\T(B)\eqdef \bigl(\A(B),\D(B)\bigr)$.

Note that, from $1/4n\leq \vol(B)\leq \gamma^3/n$ and $D(B)=1/\vol(B)$ it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dbound}
  n/\gamma^3-n/\gamma^{11}<\D(B)\leq 4n.
\end{equation}

\begin{claim}\label{claim:type}
The number of types is at most $\gamma^{16}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Since $A(B)<D(B)\leq 4 n$, the number of types is at most
$(\frac{4 n}{n/\gamma^4})(\frac{4 n}{n/\gamma^{11}})=16\gamma^{15}\leq \gamma^{16}$.
\end{proof}

For a type $\T=(\A,\D)$, let $\Y(\T)\eqdef \lbrace \A+k\D : k\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\rbrace$ be the arithmetic progression generated by
$\A$ and $\D$. Note that if $\T=\T(B)$, then $\Y(\T)$ is an approximation to $r^{-1}(B)$.
In particular, $\Y(\T)$ and $r^{-1}(B)$ intersect any long interval that is not too far from the origin in approximately
the same way.

For integers $a,b$, denote by $[a,b)$ the integer interval consisting of integers $x$ satisfying $a\leq x<b$.
Our construction will be a union of intervals of length $n/\gamma^3$ whose left endpoints are in $[0,n\gamma^4)$.\smallskip

We first estimate the difference between respective terms in $\Y(\T)$ and $r^{-1}(B)$ inside $[0,n\gamma^4)$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:shrink}
Suppose $\T(B)=\bigl(\A(B),\D(B)\bigr)$.
Then for any integer $x\in [0,n\gamma^4)$ and any integer $k$,
$\A(B)+k\D(B)\in [x,x+ n/2\gamma^3)$ implies $A(B)+kD(B)\in [x,x+ n/\gamma^3)$.
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
For such $k$, since $\mathcal{A}(B)+k\mathcal{D}(B)< n\gamma^4+ n/\gamma^3$, from \eqref{eq:dbound} we deduce that \[k< \frac{n\gamma^4+ n/\gamma^3}{n/\gamma^3-n/\gamma^{11}}\leq 2\gamma^7.\]
In view of $k\geq 0$, this implies that
\[0\leq (A(B)+kD(B))-(\mathcal{A}(B)+k\mathcal{D}(B))\leq \frac{n}{\gamma^4}+2\gamma^7\cdot \frac{n}{\gamma^{11}}= \frac{3n}{\gamma^4},\]
and hence $A(B)+kD(B)\in[x,x+n/2\gamma^3+3n/\gamma^4)\subseteq [x,x+n/\gamma^3)$.
\end{proof}

For a type $\T$ and $L\in\cL$ that satisfy $\T=\T(B)$ and $L=L_B(\beta)$ for some good pair $(B,\beta)$, define
\[\Y_{\T}(L)\eqdef\lbrace \A+k\D:k\in L\rbrace.\]
With this definition,
$\Y_{\T}(L)$
is the approximation to $r^{-1}(\beta)$ induced by the approximation $\Y(B)$
to~$r^{-1}(B)$.

\begin{claim}
The set $\bY_{\T}(L)=\Y_{\T}(L)\cap [0,n\gamma^4)$ is of size at least $\gamma^4/16+1$.
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
Let $(B,\beta)$ be a good pair such that $\T=\T(B)$ and $L=L_B(\beta)$.
The set $L_B(\beta)$ is $\gamma^3$-periodic, i.e., $k\in L_B(\beta)$ implies $k+\gamma^3\in L_B(\beta)$.
The intersection of any interval of length $\gamma^3$ with $L_B(\beta)$ is of size exactly $\gamma^3\frac{\vol(\beta)}{\vol(B)}$.
Since the preimage of $[0,n\gamma^4)$ under the map $k\mapsto \A+k\D$ contains
\[
  \left\lfloor \frac{n\gamma^4-\A}{\gamma^3\D}\right\rfloor\geq \frac{n\gamma}{\D}-2\geq n\gamma \vol(B)-2\geq \frac{1}{2}n\gamma \vol(B)
\]
non-overlapping intervals of length $\gamma^3$, the size of $\bY_{\T}(L)$ is at least
\[\frac{1}{2}n\gamma \vol(B)\cdot \gamma^3\frac{\vol(\beta)}{\vol(B)}=\frac{1}{2}n  \gamma^4 \vol(\beta)\geq \gamma^4/16+1.\qedhere\]
\end{proof}

\begin{claim}\label{claim:probability}
Let $x$ be chosen uniformly from $[0,n\gamma^4)$. Then
$\Pr\bigl[\,\bY_{\T}(L)\cap [x,x+n/2\gamma^3) \neq \emptyset \bigr]\geq 1/32\gamma^3$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $y\in \bY_{\T}(L)$ be arbitrary. If $y\notin [0,n/2\gamma^3)$, then $\Pr[y\in [x,x+n/2\gamma^3)]=1/2\gamma^7$. Since
$\D>n/\gamma^3-n/\gamma^{11}\geq n/2\gamma^3$, the set $\bY_{\T}(L)$ contains at most one element in the interval $[0,n/2\gamma^3)$.
Hence \[\E\bigl[ \abs[\big]{\bY_{\T}(L)\cap [x,x+n/2\gamma^3)} \bigr]\geq 1/32\gamma^3.\]
Since elements of $\bY_{\T}(L)$ are at least $\D$ apart, $\abs{\bY_{\T}(L)\cap [x,x+n/2\gamma^3)}\in \{0,1\}$ for all $x$.
Therefore, \[\Pr\bigl[\,\bY_{\T}(L)\cap [x,x+n/2\gamma^3) \neq \emptyset \bigr]=\E\bigl[ \abs[\big]{\bY_{\T}(L)\cap [x,x+n/2\gamma^3)} \bigr]\geq 1/32\gamma^3.\qedhere\]
\end{proof}

Sample $900 \gamma^3 \log \gamma$ elements uniformly at random from $[0,n\gamma^4)$, independently from one another.
Let $X$ be the resulting set. Then by the preceding claim
\begin{align*}
  \Pr\bigl[\,\bY_{\T}(L)\cap \bigl(X+[0,n/2\gamma^3)\bigr)=\emptyset\bigr]\leq (1-1/32\gamma^3)^{900 \gamma^3 \log \gamma}<\gamma^{-28}.
\end{align*}
From \Cref{claim:L,claim:type} and the union bound it then follows that there exists a choice of $X$
such that $\bY_{\T}(L)\cap \bigl(X+[0,n/2\gamma^3)\bigr)$ is non-empty whenever $\T=\T(B)$, $L=L_B(\beta)$ and $(B,\beta)$ is a good pair.
In other words, for every $(B,\beta)$ there exist $x\in X$ and an integer $k\in L_B(\beta)$ such that $\A(B)+k\D(B)\in [x,x+n/2\gamma^3)$.
By \Cref{claim:shrink} this implies that $A(B)+kD(B)\in [x,x+n/\gamma^3)$ for the same $x$ and~$k$, whereas the definition
of $L_B(\beta)$ implies that $r\bigl(A(B)+kD(B)\bigr)\in \beta$.
Because this holds for every good pair $(B,\beta)$,
the set $P\eqdef r\bigl(X+[0,n/\gamma^3) \bigr)$ meets every good box.

Note that
$\abs{P}\leq \abs{X}\cdot \frac{n}{\gamma^3}\leq 900 \log \gamma\cdot n\leq 3000 d\log d \cdot n$ (since $\log \gamma\leq d\log p_d\leq 3d\log d$).

\paragraph{Second stage.} So far we have worked with boxes whose coordinates are rational numbers with denominators
of the form $p_i^{k_i}$. Given an arbitrary box, we shall shrink it down to a box of such form. We begin by describing this
process.

A \emph{$p$-interval} is an interval of the form $[a/p^k,b/p^k)$ for some integers $0\leq a<b<p^k$.
A \emph{canonical $p$-interval} is an interval of the form $[a/p^k,(a+1)/p^k)$ with $0\leq a<p^k$.
Note that canonical boxes are precisely the boxes that are Cartesian products of canonical intervals in appropriate bases.
A $p$-interval $[a/p^k,b/p^k)$ is \emph{well-shrunk} if $b-a<p^2$.

\begin{claim} Every interval $[s,u)$
contains a well-shrunk $p$-interval of length at least $(1-2/p)\len [s,u)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Let $k$ be the smallest integer satisfying $\len [s,u)\geq p^{-k}$. Let $I$ be the largest interval
of the form $I=[a/p^{k+1},b/p^{k+1})$ contained in $[s,u)$. Then
$\len I
\geq u-s-2p^{-k-1} \geq (1-2/p)(u-s)$, and
$b-a=p^{k+1}\len I\leq p^{k+1}\len [s,u)<p^2$.
\end{proof}

Call an interval $[s,u)$ \emph{$p$-bad} if it contains a rational number with denominator $p^{k+1}$, where $\len [s,u)<2p^{-k-2}$ and $k\in \Z_{\geq 0}$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:bad}
A box $\alpha=\prod_i[s_i,u_i)\subset [0,1]^d$ of volume $1/n$ fails to contain a good box only if, for some $i\in[d]$,
the interval $[s_i,u_i)$ is $p_i$-bad.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
For each $i\in [d]$, let $[s_i',u_i')$ be a well-shrunk $p_i$-interval
contained in $[s_i,u_i)$ as above. Let $\beta\eqdef \prod_i [s_i',u_i')$. Note that $\vol(\beta)\geq \vol(\alpha)\prod_i (1-2/p_i)\geq 1/4n$.

Let $B=\prod_i [a_i/p_i^{k_i},(a_i+1)/p_i^{k_i})$ be the smallest canonical box containing $\beta$.
Since the $p$\nobreakdash-interval $[s_i',u_i')$ is contained in $[a_i/p_i^{k_i},(a_i+1)/p_i^{k_i})$, we may write
it in the form \[[s_i',u_i')=[a_i/p_i^{k_i}+b_i/p_i^{\ell_i},a_i/p_i^{k_i}+c_i/p_i^{\ell_i})\] for
some integers $0\leq b_i<c_i<p_i^{k_i-\ell_i}$. Since $[s_i',u_i')$ is well-shrunk, $c_i-b_i<p^2$.

If $(B,\beta)$ is not a good pair, there exists $i\in [d]$, such that $\ell_i\geq k_i+4$. Fix such an $i$.
By the minimality of $B$, the interval $[s_i',u_i')$ contains a rational number with denominator
$p_i^{k_i+1}$. Since $[s_i,u_i)$ contains $[s_i',u_i')$, this rational number is also contained
in $[s_i,u_i)$. As $\len [s_i,u_i)\leq (c_i-b_i+2)p^{-\ell_i}<(p^2+2)p^{-k_i-4}\leq 2p^{-k_i-2}$, the interval $[s_i,u_i)$ is $p_i$-bad.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}\label{claim:translates}
Let $\Delta=1/p(p-1)$. Suppose $[s,u)\subset [1/p,1]$ is an arbitrary interval. Then at most one of its translates $[s,u),[s,u)-2\Delta,\dotsc,[s,u)-2d\Delta$ is $p$-bad.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that, for some $r$, the interval $[s,u)-2r\Delta$ contains rational number $a/p^{k+1}$ and is of length $\len [s,u)<2p^{-k-2}$.
Then the interval $[s_r,u_r)\eqdef [s,u)- 2r\Delta - a/p^{k+1}$ contains $0$ and is also of length $\len I<2p^{-k-2}$.
Hence, $u_r< 2p^{-k-2}$, and so $(k+2)$'nd digit in the base-$p$ of $u_r$ is either $0$ or~$1$.
Note that it is the same as the $(k+2)$'nd digit of $u-2r\Delta$.

Since the base-$p$ expansion of $\Delta$ is $0.01111\dotsb$ and $2d+1<p$,
for at most one of the numbers $u,u-2\Delta,\dotsc,u-2d\Delta$ is the $(k+2)$'nd digits
equal to $0$ or~$1$.
Hence, at most one of the intervals $[s,u),[s,u)-2\Delta,\dotsc,[s,u)-2d\Delta$ contains a rational number with denominator $p^{k+1}$.
\end{proof}

Let $P$ be the set constructed in the first stage. Let $v\in [0,1]^d$ be the vector whose $i$'th coordinate
is $v_i=1/p_i(p_i-1)$. Let $P'\eqdef \bigcup_{r=0}^d (P+2rv)$. We claim that $P'$ meets every subbox
of $\prod_i [1/p_i,1]$ of volume~$1/n$.

Indeed, suppose $\alpha=\prod_i [s_i,u_i) \subset \prod_i [1/p_i,1]$ is an arbitrary box of volume~$1/n$.
Then by the preceding claim, there exists $r\in \{0,1,\dotsc,d\}$ such that for no $i\in[d]$ is the interval $[s_i,u_i)-2r\Delta$
$p$-bad. \Cref{claim:bad} tells us that the box $\alpha-2r\Delta$ contains a good box. Since
the set $P$ meets all good boxes, it follows that the $P+2r\Delta$ meets $\alpha$.
As $P+2r\Delta\subset P'$, the set $P'$ indeed meets~$\alpha$.

Finally, we scale the box $\prod_i [1/p_i,1]$ onto $[0,1]^d$. This way, we turn the set $P'$
into a set that meets every subbox of $[0,1]^d$ of volume $\frac{1}{n}\prod p_i/(p_i-1)\leq 2/n$.
This set has size $\abs{P'}\leq (d+1)\cdot 3000d\log d\cdot n$.\medskip

This construction shows that $m_d(\lfloor 3000d(d+1)\log d\cdot n\rfloor)\leq 2/n$ for all $n$ that are divisible by $2\gamma^{11}$.
Since the limit $c_d=\lim_{n\to\infty} nm_d(n)$ exists, it then follows that
$c_d\leq 6000d(d+1)\log d$, which, by the Dumitrescu--Jiang inequality mentioned in the introduction,
implies that $m_d(b)\leq  \frac{1}{b+1}\cdot 6000d(d+1)\log d$ for all $b$.
Because $6000d(d+1)\log d\leq 8000d^2\log d$, the proof is complete.

\section{Problems and remarks}
\begin{itemize}
\item Because of the $n^{-1/d}$ term, the bound in \Cref{thm:crude} is weak when the number
of points $n$ is small compared to the dimension~$d$. It is likely possible to
replace the term $n^{-1/d}$ with $O_d(n^{-1})$ by using a more sophisticated averaging argument.
In our argument we considered an average of translates of a
function supported on a fixed box~$B$. The error term $n^{-1/d}$ is due to
the points near the boundary of $[0,1]^d$ receiving less weight than the rest.
One can remedy this by using, in addition to the translates of $B$,
also elongated boxes of volume $\vol(B)$ to add weight in the regions
near the boundary of $[0,1]^d$. In this paper, we decided to sacrifice
the slightly stronger bound for a simpler proof.

For best constructions of low-dispersion sets that are good when $n$ is small compared to $d$, see \cite{ullrich_vybiral,litvak} (improving
on the earlier bounds in \cite{sosnovec}). These constructions are probabilistic. For an explicit construction, which has larger dispersion, see \cite{krieg}.

\item The low-dispersion sets are used in \cite{bddg}, \cite{Krieg_Rudolf}, and \cite[Theorem 11]{nr_tensor} to give algorithms
to approximate certain one-dimensional tensors. Because of that, it is useful to
derandomize the construction in \Cref{thm:constr}. The following is a way to do so. It gives an algorithm that computes a set from \Cref{thm:constr}
in $d^{O(d)}+O(dn)$ arithmetic operations.

The algorithm is broken into two steps. The first step is a pre-processing step, which depends solely on~$d$.
The second step takes the output of the first step and $n$ and quickly produces the $n$-point low-dispersion point set in $[0,1]^d$.

For the pre-processing step, we need some definitions.

\begin{definition}
For any tuple $(\alpha_i,\delta_i,b_i,c_i)_{i=1}^d$ with $\alpha_i,\delta_i,b_i,c_i\in\mathbb{Z}/p_i^3\mathbb{Z},i=1,2,\ldots,d$, consider the system of $d$ equations in unknown $k$
\begin{align*}
\alpha_1+k\delta_1&\in J_1 \pmod{p_1^{3}},\\
\alpha_2+k\delta_2&\in J_2 \pmod{p_2^{3}},\\
&\setbox0\hbox{$\equiv$}\mathrel{\makebox[\wd0]{\vdots}}\\
\alpha_d+k\delta_d&\in J_d \pmod{p_d^{3}},
\end{align*}
where the sets $J_i$ consist of base-$p_i$ reversals of the numbers in the interval $[b_i,c_i)$ (which are $3$-digit long in base $p_i$). Let $L$ be the set of solutions of this system. Then $\cL'$ consists of all such sets $L$ as $(\alpha_i,\delta_i,b_i,c_i)_{i=1}^d$ ranges over all tuples in $(\mathbb{Z}/p_i^3 \mathbb{Z})^{4d}$.
\end{definition}
From the proof of \Cref{claim:L}, we have $L_B(\beta)\in \cL'$, for any $n$ and any good pair $(B,\beta)$. Also, note that $\abs{\cL'}\leq \gamma^{12}$. For each tuple $(\alpha_i,\delta_i,b_i,c_i)_{i=1}^d$, testing whether $k$ satisfies the equations can be done in $O(d)$ many arithmetic operations (by computing $d$ left-hand sides, reversing their digits, and seeing if the results are in appropriate intervals). Since any $L\in\cL'$ is $\gamma^3$-periodic, we only need to test $k$ satisfying $0\leq k<\gamma^3$. Thus, the set $\cL'$ can be computed in $O(d\gamma^{15})=d^{O(d)}$ many arithmetic operations.

\begin{definition}
We say that a subset $\bY'\subseteq [0,2\gamma^{15})$ is a \emph{representative} if there exist integers $\A',\D'$ and a set $L\in\cL'$ satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\D'$ is even, and $\A'$ is divisible by $2\gamma^7$,
\item $0\leq \A'<\D'$,
\item $2\gamma^8-2< \D'\leq 8\gamma^{11}$,
\item $\bY'=(\A'+L\D')\cap [0,2\gamma^{15})$,
\item $|\bY'|\geq \gamma^4/16+1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}

A representative is, roughly speaking, a sequence $\A(B)+L_B(\beta)\D(B)$ generated by the type of a good pair $(B,\beta)$, that is then scaled by $2\gamma^{11}/n$.

The input of the pre-processing step is just $d$, and the output is a set $X'\subseteq [0,2\gamma^{15})$ of size at most $900\gamma^3\log\gamma$ such that $X'+[0,\gamma^8)$ intersects all the representatives.
The existence of $X'$ is guaranteed by the following two claims and union bound.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:repbound}
The number of representatives is at most $\gamma^{28}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{claim}\label{claim:hittingbound}
Let $x'$ be chosen uniformly from $[0,2\gamma^{15})$. For any fixed representative $\bY'$, the probability
of $[x',x'+\gamma^8)$ hitting $\bY'$ is
$\Pr\bigl[\,\bY\cap [x',x'+\gamma^8) \neq \emptyset \bigr]\geq 1/32\gamma^3$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{claim:repbound}]
The numbers of possible $\A'$, $\D'$, and $L$ in the definition representatives are at most $8\gamma^{11}/2\gamma^7=4\gamma^4$, $8\gamma^{11}/2=4\gamma^{11}$, and $\gamma^{12}$, respectively. Thus, the number of representatives is at most $16\gamma^{27}\leq \gamma^{28}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\Cref{claim:hittingbound}]
The proof is similar to the proof of \Cref{claim:probability}. Let $y\in \bY'$ be arbitrary. If $y\notin [0,\gamma^8)$, then $\Pr[y\in [x,x+\gamma^8)]=1/2\gamma^7$. Assume $\bY'$ is defined by $\A',\D',L$. Since
$\D'>2\gamma^8-2\geq \gamma^8$, the set $\bY'$ contains at most one element in the interval $[0,\gamma^8)$.
Hence \[\E\bigl[ \abs[\big]{\bY'\cap [x',x'+\gamma^8)} \bigr]\geq 1/32\gamma^3.\]
Since elements of $\bY'$ are at least $\D'$ apart, $\abs{\bY'\cap [x',x'+\gamma^8)}\in \{0,1\}$ for all $x'$.
Therefore, \[\Pr\bigl[\,\bY'\cap [x',x'+\gamma^8) \neq \emptyset \bigr]=\E\bigl[ \abs[\big]{\bY'\cap [x',x'+\gamma^8)} \bigr]\geq 1/32\gamma^3.\qedhere\]
\end{proof}

It follows from the second part of the claim that
\begin{align*}
  \Pr\bigl[\,\bY'\cap \bigl(X'+[0,\gamma^8)\bigr)=\emptyset\bigr]\leq (1-1/32\gamma^3)^{900 \gamma^3 \log \gamma}<\gamma^{-28}.
\end{align*}
Thus, by the first part of the claim and union bound, there exists a choice of $X'$ such that $X'+[0,\gamma^8)$ intersects all the representatives. We can find such an $X'$ using the method of conditional expectations in time $\gamma^{O(1)}$.\smallskip

For any fixed $n$, which is divisible by $2\gamma^{11}$, we use $X'$ from the pre-processing step to find the set $P$ that meets every good box, similarly to the stage one of the construction in \Cref{thm:constr}. Namely, given $X'$ as above, let $X=\frac{n}{2\gamma^{11}}X'$. The desired set is then $P\eqdef r(X+[0,n/\gamma^3))$. Indeed, given a good pair $(B,\beta)$, let $\bY'$ be the representative
corresponding to the triple $(\A',\D',L)$ where
$\A'=\A(B)\times 2\gamma^{11}/n$, $\D'=\D(B)\times 2\gamma^{11}/n$, and $L=\cL_B(\beta)$. From the pre-processing step, there exists some $x'\in X'$ such that $[x',x'+\gamma^8)\cap \bY'\neq \emptyset$. This implies $\A(B)+k\D(B)\in\frac{n}{2\gamma^{11}}x'+[0,n/2\gamma^3)$ for some $k\in L_B(\beta)$, and hence the set $P$ hits $\beta$.

Given such a set $P$ we can then proceed exactly as in the stage two in the proof of \Cref{thm:constr}. It is
completely deterministic. Naively, it takes $O(d\log n)$ steps
to compute each element of $P$ since computing the function $r_{p_i}$
requires $O(\log n)$ steps, for each $i$. That would make the total
number of operations in the algorithm $d^{O(d)}+O(dn\log n)$.
However, since the base-$p_i$ expansions of adjacent integers are
almost identical, it is possible to re-use the value of $r_{p_i}(m)$
when computing $r_{p_i}(m+1)$. This way one obtains an algorithm
with the total number of operations being $d^{O(d)}+O(dn)$.

\item Dispersion has also been studied on the torus. In this variant of the problem,
the boxes are products of \emph{toroidal intervals}, which, in addition to the usual intervals $(a,b)$ for $a<b$,
include the sets of the form $(a,b)\eqdef (a,1]\cup [0,b)$ for $a>b$. Denote the $d$-dimensional
torus by $\Tor^d$, and let $m_d^{\Tor}$ be the corresponding dispersion function, i.e., the largest number
such that there is an empty box of volume $m_d^{\Tor}(n)$ among every $n$-point set on $\Tor^d$.
Ullrich \cite{ullrich} proved that $m_d^{\Tor}(n)\geq \min\{1,d/n\}$. This bound is trivially sharp for $d=1$,
and it was shown in \cite{breneis_hinrichs} that it is also sharp for $d=2$ and infinitely many~$n$.
In the opposite direction, the construction of Larcher, which was mentioned in the introduction, carries over verbatim to the
torus, and so $m_d(n)\leq 2^{7d+1}/n$. We can improve the base of exponent from $2^7$ to $e/2$.

\begin{proposition}
The toroidal dispersion satisfies $m_d^{\Tor}(n)\leq 32000(e/2)^dd^3\log d/n$, for all $n$ divisible by~$d$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $P$ be the set obtained by invoking \Cref{thm:constr} with $n/d$ in place of~$n$.
Write $P+u$ to denote the shift of $P$ by vector $u$, where the `shift' is understood as a shift on~$\Tor^d$.
Set $v\eqdef\nobreak(1/d,1/d,...,1/d)\in \Tor^d$, and consider the shifts $P+rv$ for $r\in \{0,1,\dotsc,d-1\}$.
We claim that the toroidal dispersion of $\bigcup_{r=0}^{d-1}(P+rv)$ is at most $32000(e/2)^dd^3\log d/n$.
To prove this, it suffices, for every toroidal box $B_0$ of volume $32000(e/2)^dd^3\log d/n$, to find $r\in \{0,1,\dotsc,d-1\}$ such that the toroidal box
$B_r\eqdef B_0-rv$ contain a usual box of volume $8000d^3\log d/n$.

Write $\len(a,b)$ for the length of a toroidal interval $(a,b)$.
If $(a,b)$ is a toroidal interval, the largest usual interval contained in $(a,b)-x$ has length
$\len(a,b)$ if $x\notin (a,b)$ and $\max\bigl\{\len(a,x),\len(x,b)\bigr\}$ if $x\in (a,b)$.
For a toroidal interval $(a,b)$, let $f_{(a,b)}$ be the function given by
\[
f_{(a,b)}(x)\eqdef
\begin{cases}
\log\left(\max\left\{\frac{\len(a,x)}{\len(a,b)},\frac{\len(x,b)}{\len(a,b)}\right\}\right)&\text{for }x\in(a,b),\\
 0&\text{for }x\notin (a,b).
\end{cases}
\]
If $B=\prod (a_i,b_i)$ is a toroidal box, the largest usual box contained in $B-(x_1,\dotsc,x_d)$ has volume
\[
\vol(B)\exp\Bigl(\sum f_{(a_i,b_i)}(x_i)\Bigr).
\]

We shall estimate $\tfrac{1}{d}\sum_{r=0}^{d-1} f_{(a_i,b_i)}(r/d)$ by comparing it to the respective integral:
Since the function $f_{(a,b)}$ is unimodal with minimum at
$x=(a+b)/2$, the total variation of $f_{(a,b)}$ is $f_{(a,b)}(a)+f_{(a,b)}(b)-2f_{(a,b)}(\frac{a+b}{2})=2\log 2$.
Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:singleavg}
\frac{1}{d}\sum_{r=0}^{d-1}f_{(a,b)}(r/d)\geq \int_{0}^1f_{(a,b)}(x)\,dx-2\log2/d.
\end{equation} We can bound the integral in turn by
$
  \int f_{(a,b)}(x)\,dx=(\log 2-1)\len(a,b)\geq \log 2-1
$.
Summing~\eqref{eq:singleavg} over each of the $d$ coordinate directions, we then obtain
\[
\frac{1}{d}\sum_{r=0}^{d-1}\sum_{i=1}^d f_{(a_i,b_i)}(r/d)\geq d\log(2/e)-2\log 2.
\]
Hence, given any toroidal box $B_0$, there exists $r\in \{0,1,\dotsc,d-1\}$ such that the toroidal box $B_r=B_0-rv$ contains a usual box
of volume at least $\vol(B_0)\cdot \tfrac{1}{4}(2/e)^d$. In particular, if $\vol(B_0)\geq 32000(e/2)^dd^3\log d/n$,
then $B_r$ contains a usual box of volume $8000 d^3\log d/n$.
\end{proof}

It might be that the toroidal dispersion is indeed larger than the usual dispersion.
One evidence in that direction is that the VC dimension of boxes in the $[0,1]^d$
is $2d$ whereas the VC dimension of toroidal boxes is asymptotic to $d\log_2d$, as recently
showed by Gillibert, Lachmann and M\"ullner \cite{gillibert_lachmann_mullner}.

\item The first stage in the proof of \Cref{thm:constr} can be modified to yield a set $P$
such that the intersection $P\cap B$ with any dyadic box $B$ contains approximately
the same number of points. This can be used to give better constructions of sets in $\R^d$
without any large convex holes. The details are in \cite{almostnets} and \cite{convexholes}.

\item We suspect that the smallest dispersion of an $n$-point set is asymptotic to
$\Theta(d\log d\cdot \frac{1}{n})$.

\end{itemize}

\bibliographystyle{plain}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Computational Geometry (cs.CG)

Empty axis-parallel boxes